So The Alphaville Herald continues to push the edge of the envelope. In this case the envelope has "Underage Child Sexual Solicitation in Virtual Worlds" written all over it. They're running a mind-boggling interview with an avatar who's been turning tricks in TSO since the early days. Since this sexual activity involves real money, an under-age protagonist, and the violation of a serious number of federal and state sexual solicitation statutes, it's your required reading for the day. Call it research.
Oh, did we mention that Maxis, the developers of TSO, have started to delete in-world references to The Alphaville Herald?
Sex, Minors, Censorship, First Amendment, Corporate Retaliation... This one's got it all.
Heaven.
"A self-proclaimed under-age virtual self-pimping cyber prostitute and madame..."
Someone clue me in here... Is soliciting (or even coercion) for strictly cyber-sex treated legally the same as for physical sex?
BTW, is there any confirmation of all this? Or is this "Mr. Anonymous Wankalot" pulling an elaborate prank?
Posted by: DivineShadow | Dec 08, 2003 at 22:33
Wow, if you read this interview carefully, you'll realize that this person is such a well practiced control freak (or perhaps the interviewer is weak willed), they start making them even say "hahaha" over "lol".
Very strange, but besides all that, The Sims was bound to turn out like this in the end, at least, that's the end result I would predict for the end of a social world, or just before it ended, a wild sex crazed world. Inevetible? Perhaps not with proper precautions, but like Richard said, romance never works in a VW ;)
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Dec 08, 2003 at 23:41
lol, I mean hahahaha -- anything to keep my sources talking. The questin of how much is made up is a good one. The avatars in question *did* run the number one house in the romance category for some time, and there is really only one way to accomplish that. The more recent stuff about abusing and scamming newbies I've seen myself and have sent newbie reporters to be scammed.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 09, 2003 at 09:41
Peter --
Keep interviewing Van, and keep asking the same questions phrased differently. I notice you're getting different answers at different times. Van can't remember what the answers were last time, or doesn't care to.
Especially age. I think you can expect to get different answers about their age. Also repeat the question about being bisexual, I wonder if they'll continue to state that or not.
I've got a few theories about the person behind this character, I want to read more interviews to see which one is correct.
The (speaking as) stuff was particularly of interest.
Posted by: Dee Lacey | Dec 09, 2003 at 16:21
Pete,
Whatever happened is relevant only due to identities (characteristics of such) and motive.
I don't doubt the existence (even widespread) of scamming, griefing, hacking, sex-talking, hate-mongering, double-talk, brainwashing, or whatever other activities I might not have ever imagined could take place in a VW - I believe it *all* happens, everything and anything, including things my mind would not comprehend. What I do doubt is the underpinning of what makes this relevant *to me*: Identities and intent. Without them I could just as well be reading a sci-fi novel.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Dec 09, 2003 at 18:03
Well, it was bound to happen. Maxis has suspended my account for 72 hours for posting this in my property description: "Our newspaper/blog is online at alphavilleherald.com"
I had removed all references to the paper from my personal bio, but plum forgot about the property descript. Man are those guys P.O.d or what? See alphavilleherald.com for details. (Can I say that here?)
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 10, 2003 at 10:53
Yes, I feel quite comfortable with you saying "See alphavilleherald.com for details."
Sorry to hear that EA is giving you guys the runaround, although perhaps not as suprising as one would hope.
Cory
Posted by: Cory Ondrejka | Dec 10, 2003 at 11:07
EA has permanently terminated my Urizenus account, 11 hours after issuing a 72 hour warning/suspension. In the termination letter (below) EA falsely claims that I have "continue to list alphvilleherald.com" in my profiles. In fact I immediately removed all references to the Alphaville Herald from my user bio. One presumes that this action is in no small measure part of the continuing campaign of EA/Maxis against urizenus and the Alphaville Herald for breaking the stories of child cyber-prostitution in alphaville.
following is the termination letter:
Dear Urizenus,
Your "The Sims Online" login account ( 578372615 ) has been permanently closed for severe and/or repeated Terms of Service or Rules of Conduct violations. Most recently, on 12-10-2003 at 16:25 GMT a cheating complaint was filed against you. You have continued to list alphavilleherald.com in your profiles after a warning and suspension for this. Your previous account record has also been considered in this action. While we regret it, we feel it is necessary for the good of the game and its community.
To understand our rights and privileges concerning this action, please review:
http://www.ea.com/global/legal/tos.jsp
https://player.thesimsonline.ea.com/user_agreement.jsp
Contact EA Account Admin for further information on this action and/or to file an appeal:
http://accountadmin.custhelp.com
Thank you for your attention.
Carbonprtx
EA Player Relations
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 10, 2003 at 12:07
Just a heads up, Peter Ludlows account was permanently deleted after a 72 hour suspension for "repeated violations" of the TOS.
To wit, Maxis claims that he refused to remove references to "www.alphavilleherald.com" from his user profile. Ludlow and I know this to be untrue as we all endeavoredt o comply with the TOS (however dogmatic and unfairly enforced it may be) in order to preserve our in game preesnce. But, if they wanna fight we'll fight.
My question is, where the funk is my sim gonna live now that the owners house has gone boom!
Posted by: Squirrel | Dec 10, 2003 at 12:51
Are you serious? They deleted our property too? Squirrel you'd better check and see if you still have an account. See below.
The latest which I just put up on the AV Herald.
---
In this Rapidly Breaking story, it appears that EA/Maxis is attempting to pursue its vendetta against the Alphaville Herald by banning additional sims from the game. Now the account associated with Doctor Legion has either been suspended or terminated. Doctor Legion has received no official statement of suspension from maxis, much less a justification of why, but has recieved an "account suspended" message on login. Doctor Legion has received no warnings from Maxis to date and did not have a reference to the alphaville herald in his bio. We are seeking clarification from Maxis.
Recapping the situation, a policy of selective enforcement of the EA TOS began when the Alphaville Herald began pressing Maxis to notify local police authorities of an in game report or child abuse. These attacks have intensified since we have begun reporting cases of child cyber-prostitution in game. The alleged TOS violations have involved in game references to The Alphaville Herald. These suspensions continue even though to the best of our knowledge all references to the alphaville herald were removed from player bios days ago.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 10, 2003 at 12:57
I just read over the TOS and I could find nothing in there which related to banning or terminating an account on the basis of having any website in your bio, except for the EXTREME bullshit stretch you might connect "commercial website or content" with the Alphaville Herald...which doesn't have any commercial content, not even an ad banner.
I hate lawsuits to death, I really do, I'm sick of seeing John Doe or Susy Smith sue over their own incompetance or over an accidental mistake but this is one lawsuit I'd back 100%. I'd say EA is ripe for the picking, they screwed up HARD on this one. Heh, me being the poor bastard I am would at least vie to get my money back for the game and all the months of subscription I payed for their service. Of course I'm sure with EA you could get a LOT more considering emotional damage, irrepairable slander and moral standing, etc, etc.
Hit 'em where it hurts I say ;)
Posted by: Lee Delarm | Dec 10, 2003 at 14:47
Pete,
I wouldn't consider the EA folks dumb by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm sure whatever they are doing in this very particular case has been thought-out.
You probably need to weight the facts before doing anything -and that includes writing further on your site-. While you may feel you have been wronged and could easily drag them to court on seemingly quite a few counts, you need to keep a cool head and look at it from the other side. From my very limited information, if I were on Maxis' shoes I would see a player that is intent on libel; I wouldn't hesitate to stop you by whatever legal means are available.
Succinctly: Make sure you know which way the wind blows before spitting.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Dec 10, 2003 at 16:00
Divine: while I feel your call for caution, a few notes. Firstly there isn't an account of libel happening here. Maxis took an action and we reported on it. While we feel this is a bit of a draconian reaction, no one at this point really knows why this action was taken.
In the most sinister of scenarios Maxis is acting out against us because of our postins out of game. In a more likely scenario there is a cadre of low-level desk monkeys who are heavy-handedly enforcing a legal document (the TOS) that they neither drew up, nor is it likely that they fully comprehend it. To those enforcers the TOS is a tool of justification rather than a navigatable, legal document.
IF there is a libel suit to happen it would, most likely happen between the players who are fuming over what has been posted in various interviews. And honsetly they can go F*** themselves and each other all the live long day.
The thrid possibility is that some one simply hacked the accounts. While this was immediately claimed on our comments board, I think the possibility of it is rather low.
So in any case, Maxis has probably misstepped, either the enforced their TOS despite our acquiesence to it's terms (which many within and without MAXIS claim to be "vague" and have proven themselves unable to sufficiently explain)
OR
the accounts were deleted in rote action by a desk monkey who didn't know better.
so in any case blood has been spilled. Lets see who makes it out of the water.
Posted by: Squirrel | Dec 10, 2003 at 16:49
Peter, if you ever get re-established, you still have your simoleans on deposit with GOM. :) They're available whenever you are.
Good luck to you!
Posted by: Jamie Hale | Dec 11, 2003 at 13:50
You know Jamie, I am sooooo glad I put my simoleans on account with you. One of my next stories will surely be on the value of these in-game player-run banks which protect our assets from deletion. Question is, how can I thank these nice people without getting them in trouble?
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 11, 2003 at 15:48
Here's the latest, from Salon.com:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/12/12/sims_online_newspaper/index.html
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Dec 12, 2003 at 20:03
I don't mean this to be offensive or mean-spirited. I think Peter's done some interesting things, but I'm just not wrapping my mind around his position very well.
Peter, why would you want to be someplace you were obviously not welcomed at? Why does Maxis have an obligation to allow you to remain in the world they created when you have obviously taken steps to point out the worst in their world, potentially doing them irreparable harm?
My point of view is this: if someone came over to my house and accused me of supporting child pornography, there would be some harsh words exchanged. It would go without saying that you would be ejected from my house. (I've got a hate page dedicated to my game because I fed someone who made a joke about pedophilia to the wolves on a M59 server. See this site for the lovely details from the poor player's point of view.)
I guess I don't see how you could have imagined that there would be any other outcome besides this. Allowing you to have first-hand experience to expose the seedy underbelly of a game that's supposed to be friendly and welcoming to socializers is bad for business. Allowing you to directly accuse them of allowing a form of child pornography is bad for their reputation. Given the direct manner you used, it seems the conclusion was inevitable.
Perhaps I'm too far into the "creators must have the ultimate rights in a virtual world" camp to see it otherwise, but I'd like to hear your side of this.
My thoughts,
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Dec 13, 2003 at 05:47
No, good question Brian. While we may not find "love it or leave it" a compelling position when we think of geographical nations (obviously it would be a lot to ask me to pack up and leave the United States), one might ask "Pete, why don't you just go to Second Life?" I ask myself that question too. The answer is that I am conducting research on the alphaville community and economy, I have a lot of time invested in my research, and I don't want to abandon it just because some corporation is unhappy about it. That's one thing.
A second issue is that in the course of this research and publishing it in the Herald it became clear to me that there is a lot happening in this world that the outside world *doesn't* know about, and which, for the moment, I am the only one reporting on. My sense is that Maxis doesn't want the outside world to know about it either, but my inclination is to think that the outside world (parents etc.) have a *right* to know and then decide if this is really where they want their kids to be playing. I don't buy the idea that Maxis owns the space therefore they can draw a curtain over the world and prevent potential critics from peaking in.
Third and not insignificantly, I have made a lot of friends in alphaville, and some of them I consider to be among my best friends. I can still communicate with them via YIM and other means, but it would be nice to hang out with them and play pool back at the old Alphaville Herald Headquarters.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 13, 2003 at 11:52
Brian: "creators must have the ultimate rights in a virtual world..."
Setting aside issues of law and the State, the fact that I own a space does not give me a blanket exemption from all ethical mandates other than my own. If Adolf buys an island and tortures puppies on it, he's doing something Wrong, even though he owns the island. Given what Adolf is doing, there would be a range of opposing actions that a person could undertake to stop him, that would be considered acceptable. Not acceptable: shoot him. Acceptable: report what he is doing to the captains of ships who supply his island with food. Indeed, if the moral wrongs he's committing are heinous enough, actions to oppose them would not only be acceptable, they would become moral obligations. NOT to do them would itself be wrong.
Certainly, Peter is justified in reporting what he sees in TSO. Not only that: given the nature of the activity, he (and everyone else) is under obligation to broadcast this information, at least to the extent that a reasonably alert parent of a minor child in TSO becomes aware that this kind of activity is going on. Indeed, Maxis bears this obligation more than anyone: to control the behavior, or alert parents to it.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Dec 13, 2003 at 13:33
I find it odd that Maxis banned the reporter, and not, as far as I can tell, the perpetrators.
Does Maxis want a family-safe environment in TSO? Or merely the appearance of one?
Posted by: AFFA | Dec 13, 2003 at 14:08
"Does Maxis want a family-safe environment in TSO? Or merely the appearance of one?"
That's an easy one.
While hopefully most if not all of the individuals employed at Maxis would like to see a family-safe environment in TSO, Maxis itself, the corporate profit-driven entity doesn't care one way or the other. It's cheaper (especially short term) and vastly easier to ban the whistleblowers and cover-up the misbehavior than it is to police the miscreants, so the corporate reflexes push the response in that direction. It takes individuals with a moral backbone and/or long-term vision and influence sufficient to buck those reflexes to halt this automatic behavior and conciously force the response into another path. Unfortunately, the bigger the corporation, the more inertia its automatic reflexes carry and the riskier it is (career-wise) for an individual to stand up to them.
Posted by: Bryan Allman | Dec 13, 2003 at 23:07
Peter Ludlow wrote, "No, good question Brian."
Ah, glad I wasn't too offensive. I appreciate your response.
I guess the further question is: why didn't you take more steps to protect your investments, then? Did you try going to Maxis with this story before you posted it online? Didn't you figure that exposing something like this would put your research at risk? Do you think you could have taken steps to verify this more before posting about it?
Edward Castronova wrote, "If Adolf buys an island and tortures puppies on it, he's doing something Wrong, even though he owns the island."
What if Adolf is really sacrificing sheep (or some other animal it is "acceptable" to kill) in accordance to his mainstream-accepted religion? ("I swear, those black sheep looked like chocolate labs from 10 miles out!") Are you morally obligated to act against someone who is accused of behavior that hasn't necessarily been verified? Further, it's not like Maxis is providing the underage workers in the brothel. A better example would be if you rented the island out to Adolf the accused puppy-torturer. Would it be okay to accuse you of supporting puppy torture because he's doing it on your island, even if you didn't know about it? Would it be acceptable for you to revoke the dock agreement you had with a captain that went around telling other capitains terrible tales about your associations with the alleged puppy torturer?
I also question the automatic assumption that things that happen between avatars are just as bad as things that happen between people. People activly kill each other in my game. Some groups actively search out and kill other groups of people ("guild wars"), even to the point that one group "leaves" the world. Am I now a genocidal tyrant as bad as Pol Pot or that other famous Adolf because I allow, nay encourage this killing in my world through its mechanics? Anyone who says "yes" needs to take a step away from the computer and get some fresh air.
As far as I've read, Peter hasn't actually verified that there's actual underage children working at the brothel, only that the person running the brothel has said there is. If Maxis has the now industry-standard "you must be 18 or older to play this game" disclaimer in their EULA, then Maxis could assert that these people are, in fact, over 18 to their knowledge.
Edward also wrote, "Indeed, Maxis bears this obligation more than anyone: to control the behavior, or alert parents to it."
Control the behavior? How do you suggest they do that? To borrow from my response to this issue on Slashdot: do you expect them to monitor private conversations and have a CS representative pop in, saying "I see you've used the words 'penis' and/or 'vagina' or colloqual versions thereof at least 5 times in the last 5 minutes. Are you having cybersex? If so, I need to verify ages; please fax me some ID at 415-...."? Let me stop making virtual worlds right now if that's gonna have to be my job.
Alert parents? Are you going to expect movie theaters to put out signs saying "WARNING: Teenagers sometimes come here to make out" so parents can make sure that little Johnny doesn't see some high school guy feeling up some high school girl?
I guess I'm just a little worried that this issue is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that there are alleged underaged people typing dirty words to other people. Ignoring the fact that these "kids" are in a place called a "brothel" and know enough to give the patrons what they want. As I've said, I'm no fan of child exploitation, but I'm not ready to grab the torches and pitchforks and storm the Maxis fortress across the bay for their actions here.
I guess I expect better of a place that purports to want to study these worlds than to engage in senseless fear mongering over buzzwords usually associated with the most close-minded sects when describing the internet.
My opinion,
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Dec 14, 2003 at 06:54
Whoa Brian, methinks thou dost protest too much!
If there is nothing wrong with having self-proclaimed minors engaging in cyber-prostitution in a game world, then what on earth is wrong with someone exposing the activity? While I don't think movie theaters have any moral obligation to warn parents about the potential mischief that may be occurring in the dark, neither do I think they have any moral right to express outrage and retaliate against anyone who describes witnessing such behavior in the local paper. Movie theaters DO have a legal obligation to ensure that minors don't enter a theater showing content prohibited to them by law, but that's a completely different issue/debate/argument.
One problem we have in this whole TSO CS debacle is that, as usual, we don't really know why the company did what it did. The Alphavillers exposed two things that embarassed Maxis, the cyber-prostitution and the self-proclaimed child-beater. They then found themseleves selectively harrassed on questionable technicalities of the TOS, and then summarily banned even after they did everything they could to comply. We don't really know if one or the other or both or neither of the exposees triggered the action. It does seem pretty obvious that the action was a vendetta for SOME reason, given the resulting banning IN SPITE of the frantic attempts at compliance. There was certainly NO good-faith attempt at resolving the issue on Maxis' part, they couldn't even be bothered to specify exactly which links or content on which page(s) were in violation of their TOS. No matter what rights, legal or moral, Maxis may have in this regard, they have acted like bullies and thugs and have trampled all over relatively powerless innocents (whether they have any rights or not doesn't matter!) in protecting themselves. That kind of behavior has a chilling impact on (and in) these social worlds we are studying and thus makes it perfectly appropriate material for discussion in forums like this.
I don't think anybody is actually arguing that Maxis had any obligation to monitor every conversation to catch and act on those two events themselves. What people are outraged at is, in the case of the child-beater, Maxis refused to act on it even AFTER THEY WERE INFORMED OF THE EVENT until it was escalated to the level of a PR disaster. The disaster was made largely by Maxis' refusal to act, not arbitrarily by the exposers who did everything in their power to get the issue resolved quietly.
In the cyber-prostitute case, people are outraged at the perception of a decent person being persecuted for exposing something embarassing to the company instead of the company doing something to eliminate the embarassing activity. It's the hypocrisy of a policy of turning-a-blind-eye on (and thus tacitly consenting to) questionable behavior while vigorously punishing anyone who merely exposes said behavior that outrages.
Posted by: Bryan Allman | Dec 14, 2003 at 12:45
Please forgive me if I come across too strongly or offensively here - I shall hide behind the limitations of the text medium. (When text goes away, where will we place the blame of our miscommunication? :>)
"What people are outraged at is, in the case of the child-beater, Maxis refused to act on it even AFTER THEY WERE INFORMED OF THE EVENT"
From what I understood, there was nothing to act on. The instant message would have disappeared into the electronic ether with no way of recovery. You aren't suggesting that they report to the police whenever someone is accused of saying something? With the mafia red-linking going around in most servers, do you think they want to start that sort of precedent?
The right response, IMO, is what Maxis suggests - redlinking the offender. The sort of community response that squashed the pedophilia jokester with apparent effectiveness. Those social norms are more effective than police watch dogs in enforcing PC speech patterns.
If, by the child-beater story, you mean the one where someone alleges that someone came to them claiming to be 13 yr old and beating up their 8 yr old sister, there really isn't much for Maxis to do. They could monitor the accused party, but chances are they already have a list several thousand long of accused parties to monitor. If the 8 yr old did go to the hospital, you can rest soundly knowing said hospital will be asking some questions about how the 8 yr old got the broken jaw.
That whole article annoyed me - it is the very sort of journalism which has led me to read fewer newspapers and watch less television. A huge federal case is built out of one piece of hearsay. A reference is even cited to remind us why child abuse is a bad thing!
Somewhere in the internet, some punk-troll is ROTFL at the fall out.
That all being said, I certainly don't think they should start banning accounts either. The cynical, and rational, response is not to ban people when they have strong negative influence, but rather turn them into tools for good. That takes a lot more work, though.
"No matter what rights, legal or moral, Maxis may have in this regard, they have acted like bullies and thugs and have trampled all over relatively powerless innocents (whether they have any rights or not doesn't matter!) in protecting themselves."
So? When it comes to self-preservation, it takes a rare altruist not to trample over the innocent. If you are going to start poking the tiger with sharp sticks, I'd get out of the cage first.
- Brask Mumei
Posted by: Brask Mumei | Dec 14, 2003 at 16:04
I said "What people are outraged at is, in the case of the child-beater, Maxis refused to act on it even AFTER THEY WERE INFORMED OF THE EVENT"
Brask replied "From what I understood, there was nothing to act on."
And from what I understand given Maxis' later actions on exactly that incident, you understood wrong. :-)
And if that was the end of the story, then shame on Maxis for it taking the escalation of the event to a PR disaster before acting on it, and simultaneous kudos to them for handling it intelligently and discretely once they did do something about it.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the end of the story, with the persecution of the whistleblowers and all.
"When it comes to self-preservation, it takes a rare altruist not to trample over the innocent. If you are going to start poking the tiger with sharp sticks, I'd get out of the cage first."
Sadly too true, but the trampling is certainly newsworthy nonetheless, if only as a public-service warning to anyone else who might have confused the tiger for an altruistic pussycat, which is certainly the image they try to sell!
Posted by: Bryan Allman | Dec 14, 2003 at 16:35
Brask says:
>From what I understood, there was nothing to act on. The instant message would have disappeared into the electronic ether with no way of recovery. You aren't suggesting that they report to the police whenever someone is accused of saying something? <
Not so. The communication took place in an IM chat window, which Maxis logs for some finite period of time. The report was made immediately, so the words had not disappeard into the ether. It is also my understanding that when Maxis *did* finally review the logs about a month later they concluded it was appropriate to contact the local police authorities.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 14, 2003 at 17:01
Bryan Allman wrote, "Whoa Brian, methinks thou dost protest too much!"
Er, I hope you don't mean that in the context of the allusion you're drawing from. I certainly do not support child exploitation in any tangible form.
What I am protesting, however, is the assumptions being taken for granted in this discussion. The are, in no particular order:
1) Children are at the TSO brothel mentioned.
2) Children provide some of the brothel's services.
3) Hell, that Evangeline is telling the truth about anything in that interview.
4) Cybersex has parallels to sex.
5) Cybersex with a minor has meaningful parallels to child prostitution.
6) Maxis has the obligation to do something about this.
7) Maxis even has the ability to do something about this.
8) Peter's actions were appropriate.
I don't mean to accuse Peter of anything malicious here. I believe (and desparately hope) that he's doing what he thinks is best. I'm merely pointing out that there's an awful lot of assumptions here that are causing me some problems in seeing this as a black and white issue. I think we need to think a bit more carefully before rushing off half-cocked over the emotionally-charged words an obvious braggart told a researcher with a blog. There's two main reasons why I think this.
First, I think it potentially belittles the very real problem of child prostitution that happens all too often in the offline world. Child prostition in the offline world isn't just the case of some 16-year-old sitting at the computer typing dirty. It's an ugly problem that needs to be addressed, and I don't see this as being on the same level of emotional depravity.
Second, I worry about the "chilling effect" that this will have on virual worlds. If we have people on "our side" of the fense playing the child prostitution card based in flimsy evidence, I fear what others will do. I already run a game where people immediately hurl the accusation, "Cheater!" if they are on the losing end of a PvP battle. Next someone will just yell, "Child pornographer!" in order to get my attention. While I could investigate the occasional accusation, being (legally) obligated to spend my time verifying identities and ages and activities of anyone accused of this in my game would leave me no time to do anything else should someone choose to abuse this avenue. It will essentially allow anyone to shut down a smaller company trying to create a virtual world without the legal resources to bring about proper inquiries and punitive action in the case of false accusations. I could easily see a profitable method of shutting down smaller competitors being to hire 2 people to play a competitor's game: one to claim to use underaged children for cybersex and another to cry wolf all the way to the press. (I don't mean to imply that this is what Peter is doing!)
In the end, I see lots of smoke but no fire. I see a braggart that can barely spell make comments that could be taken to mean he's underage. I see no proof of the matter, and lots of sound and fury being made over nothing that has been verified. (And, as I said above, it scares me to see this happening from people that are supposedly competent about the nature of virtual worlds.)
And, that's why I have problems faulting Maxis for their actions. Peter has not proven anything or even verified the assertions made in that inerview, but he has brought a lot of attention to this. Maxis made what was probably a financial decision that tolerating his presence was most likely costing them more money than he was paying. This is why I asked Peter if he tried to work with Maxis at all about this particular issue. I have not seen much to indicate this, so it is hard for me to separate his actions from that of a griefer accusing people of things to cause trouble. (Again, not an accusation or value judgement against Peter, just trying to put myself in Maxis' shoes here.)
My thoughts,
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Dec 15, 2003 at 09:23
Urizenus' experiment was interesting and the result predictable given Maxis PC-infused culture, but there are a number of matters of journalistic integrity here if he is going to take on the role of a RL reporter of the seamy side of TSO. First, we have yet to establish whether Evangeline/Dorian Merrill is indeed a minor -- we have heard variously that she is a 15-year-old boy or in fact someone over 21,we just can't know in the Sims, can we? Second, we have yet to learn whether Urizenus filed a complaint within the game about this alleged child prostitution behavior to see if the regular channels for addressing it would work, and what the result was. Third, we have yet to get confirmation that this alleged beating boy and his hospitalized sister even exist. Fourth, we also have to ask whether Evangeline is a set-up, a fake griefer, established by the SSG in order to make it look like whether there are things in TSO that we need the SSG to protect us from, or whether -- more likely -- the SSG manipulates the situation around Evangeline's griefing by hyping it through its own propaganda devices to make it look larger than it is. There's also the question of why Urizenus embedded himself in the Sim Shadow Government neighborhood of Shadow Lake to do his alleged impartial reporting on the game, including the SSG, and why before he created Alphaville Herald, he first created the Church of Mephistophles, an apparent Satanic cult spoof, that looked like any one of a hundred pagan, wiccan, BDSM, cult properties in the game which have engendered concern. Given his very soft touch on reporting on the SSG, which takes at face value all of their claims that they themselves are the victims rather than the victimizers, we have to ask even if he has been "turned", wittingly or not. The Alphaville Herald is definitely not the first to write about troublesome behavior and cults in the game. There are many fan sites already dealing with this and many people who have already crashed and burned of the Maxis BBS on these issues. What is at issue is whether we can develop such fora for open discussion outside the game, provide URL links to them on our profiles, without being banned or suspended temporarily from the game (I, too, was suspended over a URL link to my critical website but elected to keep my research in the game going rather than complain in the mainstream media or start a protest movement, which itself would be banned by Maxis TOS.)
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Dec 16, 2003 at 10:56
Brian says:
>Peter has not proven anything or even verified the assertions made in that inerview, but he has brought a lot of attention to this. Maxis made what was probably a financial decision that tolerating his presence was most likely costing them more money than he was paying. This is why I asked Peter if he tried to work with Maxis at all about this particular issue. I have not seen much to indicate this, so it is hard for me to separate his actions from that of a griefer accusing people of things to cause trouble. (Again, not an accusation or value judgement against Peter, just trying to put myself in Maxis' shoes here.)
>
I don't understand the issue here. I never said Evangeline (who's typist is 17 -- if you read the paper you would know he had been identified) did anything illegal or even wrong. For all I know kids cybering with adults is a healthy activity. I'm no expert. Personally, the notion gives me the creeps, but YMMV.
Furthermore, I never even *said* he did the things that he claimed he did (if you look at the introduction to the interview I called them 'claims'). For the record, I have, however, spoken to people who went to his brothel and cybered with him (ok, so now I *have* said it). Beyond that, the practice of kids going to these brothels and BDSM dungeons is so commonplace on TSO it is barely worth remarking on. But that wasn't the point of the piece. All I did was interview him, and frankly I don't care who he cybers or for how much.
The interview was part of a series I am doing related to the formation of user based governance structures in response to griefers. I don't have a PC agenda here. I just want to get my avatar back (the thought of reskilling in TSO mortifies me).
That having been said, if Maxis got rid of me because of the bad publicity I was bringing to the game, well guess what? They need to hire a new PR firm.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Dec 16, 2003 at 23:23
Brian, by no means did I mean to imply that you support child exploitation, and I apologize if my Shakespearean reference somehow did that.
You said: "Allowing you to directly accuse them of allowing a form of child pornography is bad for their reputation. Given the direct manner you used, it seems the conclusion was inevitable. ...
Perhaps I'm too far into the "creators must have the ultimate rights in a virtual world" camp to see it otherwise ..."
My comment was an attempt to humorously agree with the last sentence of the above quote. Perhaps you are. :)
I'll have to reread the Herald article again, but I don't recall Peter accusing Maxis of anything. All he did was publish a conversation he had in the game. Any accusation is at best implied, and then only if you make several assumptions about the accuracy of Peter's reporting and his motives for reporting it and any unwritten judgements he might be making on the matter.
*Maxis* is the one that makes themselves look like they support the cyber-sex-by-minors activities by vindictively banning Peter and anyone they can finger associated with The Alphaville Herald while turning a blind eye on the player who actually *made* the claims that embarassed them. In fact, if Maxis did ban Peter for exposing this activity on the basis that it violated their TOS by defaming EA/Maxis, then they are the ones saying the activity in question is bad. (You can't claim defamation when someone says something nice about you!)
You questioned whether Peter made any good-faith effort to resolve the issue privately. What about turning that around, did Maxis make a good-faith effort to resolve the issue privately? Freezing then cancelling his account before he could correct the possible TOS violations is good faith? How was Peter to divine that it was OK by Maxis to have such conversations or even activities in-game but not OK to post them outside the game? Apparently, from their behavior, Maxis WANTS these activities to continue (hopefully, at least, between adults), so can't a reasonable person assume that reporting an activity that Maxis seems to approve of would not be considered offensive by them?
It's been commented repeatedly how the companies owning the games have literally the power of god over their little worlds. Perhaps it would bear reminding these little godlings of several lessons mankind has learned the hard way about such powers: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and when giving people the power to police others' behavior "Who will watch the watchers?".
The ability to do something, even legally, doesn't automatically make it right.
(And for anyone foolish enough to argue with that last sentence, think about the legality of owning a slave in Georgia circa 1860 first - don't make me come slap you! ;)
Posted by: Bryan Allman | Dec 19, 2003 at 02:32
Peter Ludlow wrote, "(who's typist is 17 -- if you read the paper you would know he had been identified)"
Er, which paper? I didn't see any positive identification in the interview. The only person that mentions the age 17 is you; "Van" is intentionally vague about his/her exact age.
Peter also wrote, "All I did was interview him, and frankly I don't care who he cybers or for how much."
That undermines a lot of the arguments people on this site have put forward about Maxis' responsibility in this issue. I also find it a little convenient that the "child prostitution" story is the one that's mentioned in other media in regards to your account ban; especially interesting since Maxis took steps to punish your account before you even ran the interview according to your own site.
Bryan Allman wrote, "My comment was an attempt to humorously agree with the last sentence of the above quote. Perhaps you are. :)"
Fair 'nuff. I'm a Usenet veteran, so I get jumpy at accusations. ;)
Bryan also wrote, "I'll have to reread the Herald article again, but I don't recall Peter accusing Maxis of anything."
The title of the page is "Evangeline: Interview with a Child cyber-Prostitute in TSO". Hardly what I call emotionally neutral. Doesn't talk about the scamming this peson is also accused of, instead it focuses on the sensational parts.
My thoughts,
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Dec 19, 2003 at 06:28
OK, I have plowed through ALMOST all of this.
I'm a player in the game and in Alphaville and since long before I ever heard of Peter Ludlow, I've been trying to call the attention of EA to this person the professor interviewed - not the kid who beat up his sister, but the number one scammer in the entire game, who sits on the number one welcome lot at the main city of the game. Many, many people have tried to get Maxis/EA to rid the game of this person, for months.
I can tell you that this person has broken many of the so-called rules of the game and breaks one major rule, as his entire raison d'etre, every single day of the game: His welcome lot exists entirely for the purpose of scamming people (especially newbies) out of their money. There is a clear rule against cheating other players out of their money. But this is ALL he does on his lot, which he has named "Free Money for Newbies."
He also has another purpose, to engage in non-stop abuse and humiliating treatment of any players who come in contact with him, and any newbies who visit his welcome lot. He did stop using foul language, since that apparently got one of his Sims banned. He has also taken a lighter approach lately to accusing others (out of the blue, for harassment purposes) of being racist or homophobic. But aside from that, the scamming activities and the abuse go on, day after day, week after week, month after month, out in the open, totally obvious for anyone who cares to go look at it to see.
There are a few who defend him, saying it is all just very clever role play, and those who are bothered by it just aren't cool enough to appreciate it. Maybe so. But I can assure you I see nothing clever and nothing humane about any "role play" going on at this welcome lot. And I do see the rules of the game flouted on a daily basis, with impunity, by this person.
Nothing is ever done about him, except that one of his many accounts might get banned on occasion. (They would not TELL us that, but we know that one of his alts did disappear suddenly.) He always pops up again, and he is nearly always visible on the number one welcome lot, scamming people, or trying to. Without a doubt, if I sign on tonight, he will be right there, as always, breaking the rules not only of the game but of human decency.
Needless to say, many people have reported this person. He would actually use the (old) message boards to advertise his lot and his fake give-aways with impunity. People would then get on to say, "No, don't go there! She's a scammer!" Those people would get their posts deleted, while his remained. At least this seems to be better on the new boards, since I haven't seen any ads there yet (but I have seen obnoxious comments from him bragging about his mistreatment of others).
We are still technically not allowed to mention anyone by name on the boards, or anything that could be traced to someone's lot. We are not allowed to accuse anyone of scamming in written form anywhere in the game. In other words, if you put up a sign on your lot in the game warning others that he is a scammer, you are subject to having that erased, as it is against the rules. Ditto for writing "scammer" on an enemy link to him. (Although he always has a couple of dozen red links, and they usually do say "scammer" on them.) Despite these game and message board rules, virtually everyone in every city of the game knows exactly what is meant by "the Alphaville scammer," so notorious and well-known is he.
This individual also has a "friend" who claimed to be the one who turned in the professor in the first place, and I have no doubt that that is true. I have seen more than one instance of someone getting kicked off the game because another individual reported him/her. They kick people off usually only when another individual reports him or her. They do not investigate beyond a few printed words, as in, "yes, I see there is a link there," or "yes, that person did say the f word." And there is no recourse - no court of appeal - nothing, for most of these players. If someone is after you, the likelihood is, sooner or later, that person will get you kicked off the game.
Just today there is yet another post on the message boards plaintively wondering why nothing is done about this scammer. People always ask why nothing is done about him. The answers I've gotten from people somewhat in the know are along the lines of, "Well, we can ban him, but we have to be very, very careful, you know, and also we can't know it is him again when he comes on in another account." The truth is, they just don't care.
I can tell you a two-year-old would recognize this scammer by any name, the minute he pops up, much less after sitting there like a spider in a web for months, and he takes no pains to disguise himself.
People are quitting the game over this. Maxis/EA will not get rid of him. I could get rid of him; any one of us players could get rid of him, but they cannot get rid of him.
When this first started out, I was incredulous that Maxis couldn't see the danger of having such a player in the first spot on the game where new players would land. But, they don't, or they don't care. I have a welcome lot in another city. But why should anybody bother to have a welcome lot and help newbies? The number one welcome lot in the number one city in the game is inhabited by a wretched scammer.
So you guys can get as philosophical as you want on this message board, but I am here to tell you that it is an outrage, and it is driving players from the game, and causing a heck of a lot of unrest and dissatisfaction among people who remain, like me; to say nothing of what it does to the newbies who fall victim to this person.
And I don't even CARE about the prostitution part of it he once engaged in. It's the scamming and the abuse of other players that gets me.
Many of the players are in despair over this. Yet nothing is ever done about it that we can see (aside from that time one of his alts was banned).
We players have cried for justice for months on end over this scammer, and nothing is done. But the professor is kicked out for a much lesser crime and, as far as I can tell, wasn't given a chance to rectify his mistake. I don't have all the details of the professor's case. But I do have a lot of experience in the game, and it seems to me like he got a bum deal while the Alphaville scammer gets a free ride.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | Dec 19, 2003 at 20:03
Coco,
Interesting... Just checked out the lot owner on TSO. 15 incoming friendships and 63 incoming enemies. And the acid comments left by those 64 enemies along with the apologetic 15 friends says a lot. A small sampling of enemy comments: "[..] What she does to all sims is sickening and should be stopped at all costs." and "[...] All she wants to do is take your money". all the way to "[...] may you forever burn in hell."
LOL... Too bad the property is offline. Nothing like visiting those who are prisoners of their own imagination.
Posted by: DivineShadow | Dec 20, 2003 at 02:29
So, another vote for "authoritarianism is better than democracy in games"? Yeah, thought so. ;)
Posted by: Brian 'Psychochild' Green | Dec 21, 2003 at 03:40
Not from this Sim. The answer to griefing in an online RP game is not turning to MOMI (the game company's cutesie acronym for its management organ) but self-organization and human solidarity. Coco entirely neglects to recount how this griefing Sim was removed from the number one slot -- by others in the welcome-lot business getting together with friends and jacking another, nice welcome lot to the number one slot. It may be hard to keep, but there are plenty of warnings out there in balloons and everywhere else so that new players don't have to come to grief. There is something the game company provides in order to deal with people who are annoying -- an ignore and ban button. But I do empathize with Coco's sense of outrage and helplessness. There is a clear public nuisance and no one can seem to do anything about it -- it's like the SSG and the BDSM menace. Still, I feel we can only do what Poles in Solidarnosc did to fight the Communists: don't burn down party committees, build your own.
Also, before you all weep too hard for the demise of Urizenus in the game, he has come back in, under the name "Uri" with the lovely lot name of "Uri Town" for his lot (bleccth) with the exact same bald Sim head.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 04, 2004 at 20:42
Not from this Sim. The answer to griefing in an online RP game is not turning to MOMI (the game company's cutesie acronym for its management organ) but self-organization and human solidarity. Coco entirely neglects to recount how this griefing Sim was removed from the number one slot -- by others in the welcome-lot business getting together with friends and jacking another, nice welcome lot to the number one slot. It may be hard to keep, but there are plenty of warnings out there in balloons and everywhere else so that new players don't have to come to grief. There is something the game company provides in order to deal with people who are annoying -- an ignore and ban button. But I do empathize with Coco's sense of outrage and helplessness. There is a clear public nuisance and no one can seem to do anything about it -- it's like the SSG and the BDSM menace. Still, I feel we can only do what Poles in Solidarnosc did to fight the Communists: don't burn down party committees, build your own.
Also, before you all weep too hard for the demise of Urizenus in the game, he has come back in, under the name "Uri" with the lovely lot name of "Uri Town" for his lot (bleccth) with the exact same bald Sim head.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 04, 2004 at 20:43
Readers may be interested in learning that a group of Sims Online players have succeeded in perpetrating a hoax on Prof. Ludlow. We made up a Sim (well, ALL Sims are made-up, but this one was more made up than others!), a fake 15-year-old girl into wiccan, and fed her to Urizenus. He interviewed her for "The Alphaville Herald" and fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Read all about it at:
http://syminalist.tripod.com/simsoutofline/id15.html
We do hope this will help the academic world to vigorously question the integrity of Prof. Ludlow's research -- he has not checked his sources in the slightest. How many other of his cut-and-paste chats from Yahoo Messenger are fakes?
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 23, 2004 at 21:42
Dyerbrook> How many other of his cut-and-paste chats from Yahoo Messenger are fakes?
Well? How many? Tell us your opinion. Are you asserting that, on the whole, Ludlow has given the readers a false impression of what's happening in Alphaville? That would be a difficult case to make. I've been lurking inAV myself the last couple of weeks. I sense no great disparaity between the images he's drawn and the actual state of affairs. Making up a Sim and then getting him to interview her doesn't affect the validity of general conclusions he is making.
Look, you can't defeat a general conclusion with an anecdote. Any statement about humans is a generalization, not a Law. It holds most of the time, and is the right lens through which to view the situation. But it's not a universal. We're talking people here, not physics (and even physics laws are not universal).
When someone says "NBA players are taller than everyone else," you could go out and find someone not in the NBA who is in fact taller than at least one NBA player. And then you could claim, "AHA! Whoever asserted that NBA players are taller than everyone else is a fool! A fool! Beware all of his assertions!!!!!" And you would be treated like a lunatic, quite properly.
Ludlow is reporting the truth about AV and TSO in general. It's interesting that his reporting drives you to this bizarre fake-Sim conspiracy, that you claim discredits everything Ludlow writes. On the contrary. It is yet another confirmation of the cabalistic, cannibalistic nature of AV's citizenry, the very features that he's been telling us about.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Jan 23, 2004 at 22:29
Dyerbrook, the problem with your "hoax" is that the wiccans and practices you report appear to be real (unless you aged a sim 400 days and got her a job as a DJ on Fueled radio and built a web site for her). Two other AV wiccans are r/l friends of mine. It appears to be an interesting community.
Anyway, since this all seems to go back to the Case of Evangeline and whether he really is a 17 year old kid, a reporter for the Detroit Free Press just talked to his mom. Story out Monday or Tuesday.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 23, 2004 at 23:18
Interesting that finally, a RL journo is talking to Evangeline's mom. Is Evangeline's mom the one playing Evangeline? We do hope a 17-year-old kid will materialize. My, I guess you all do circle the wagons. Prof. Castronova, why is it that when Prof. Ludlow comes out with *one* story about a child cyberprostitute, *that* is ok as a general conclusion, a "general truth about Alphaville," and not one anecdote, but if *I* create a fake wiccan teenage Sim, that's just an anecdote, and not a general conclusion? Show me the scores of cybering teen prostitutes in the game, and I'll believe you. I've been playing intensively for 420 plus days, and I don't see it. Even when I played a teenage girl for 10 days, the worst thing that happened to me is that some randy old goat asked me if I had any panties on and gave me his real-life web site address with his real e-mail. I remained intact, as it were. (It was still disturbing, and was still more shocking than I knew when I didn't play the role of a teenager, but there is the question of reality, and how real it is.)
It's hardly cannibalistic to want to puncture a little bit the over-inflated balloon of someone taking his own "censorship" story way beyond proportion, and magnifying beyond belief the doings of this rather dull online game. Read some of the other responses at AVH, and you'll see that the community is divided in its response to his tabloid blog. Some are mad that it doesn't reflect the positive realities they know. Of course I'm not so naive as to believe that press report on the positive -- that doesn't sell newspapers and get hits, we all know that, the press has to report on the negative. Others are mad that he hasn't gone far enough and been systematic enough, or backed up his charges -- they know what he is saying to be true, but they feel he has not said it credibly by merely cutting and pasting Yahoo Messenger chats.
Ludlow is jamming on the fact that this fake Sim of ours still tells some accurate information about the witches in AV. But that's only the recipe for a good hoax -- to make it credible by making it contain some truth. He never cross-checked his facts like a good reporter by going to those witches this teenager gushed about and asking them any questions to see if they knew this alleged teenage girl and if she was accurate in her claims. That's the same problem with Evangeline. It's good that the uncertainty about Evangeline is finally being cleared up, but it's not being cleared up by the tabloid AV Herald, but by the RL Detroit Free Press.
And the point of Selene Moon is not to tell a story about wiccan in AV. Any fool could have done that, if the AV Herald wasn't so obsessed about the economy and prostitution, they could have gotten that story out weeks ago. The point of Selene Moon is to show that teenagers get lured into lifestyles by adults who don't bother to check on their ages, and even if they find out their ages, don't care. And that's what's important for the policy-makers of the world to look at. Game companies make teen-rated games, but the activities that go on between adults and teens in the game are not at all teen-rated, and that's of importance.
The problem with Uri's tabloid is that he usually just runs interviews "as is," the raw feed, without any effort to try to frame the story. Any untruth can be told, and he relies on the blogosphere to correct it. So the Sim Shadow Government can say it is a public service that helps old ladies across the street, but the bloggers who say it is an evil cult are buried under 300 posts. Whereas a responsible media outlet frames the story *atthe outset* with the different points of view, so the reader can judge for himself.
The problem with blogging, is that in the name of "spontaneous me" and "freedom" the frame is discarded. We're supposed to believe it is corporate, white, oppressive, blah blah and all flip to Indymedia. Baloney. It's a tabloid with one-sided reporting. We would like to hear all sides of the issue, *and judge for ourselves*. The stream-of-consciousness blog reporting from a fantasy game that Uri is perpetuating is like a nozzle of a hose turned on high and aimed in one direction. It's not a fountain.
To say that Uri's blog tells "general truths" about AV is like saying that that Guatemalan Nobel Prize winner who wrote "I, Rigoberta" was really telling a "general truth" when she said that abuses that happened to other people happened to her or her family when they in fact didn't, and that it was OK to make a "composite" story like that because abuses did really happen to other people. Well, accuracy is important. Russians understand this. When Elena Bonner, who is the Guatemalan equivalent in her country, was asked if her story "happened" she said "I don't know. But it was true." Many activists and leftwing sympathizers with that Guatemalan cause became furious that the mainstream media that outed Rigoberta's fabrications was able to stand. They said she should be given a pass because she told a "community truth", they said.
This is a notion of Chomskyites and Dadaists and God knows what, the kind of treacle that you find in intellectual currents on university campuses today, but it is rightly challenged. You don't get to fake and put out composite characters along the way, just because you are telling a larger historical truth. If you want to do that, write novels, write fiction, don't pretend you're writing a scholarly work of substance that can pass peer review.
Your analogy with the NBA player is merely misleading. And what we're actually doing is attacking Uri's METHODOLOGY, not the idea of surveys and interviews of Sims about the seamy goings-on in AV where there are a lot of tall basketball players (and a lot of tellers of tall tales). Let him do it, it's a public service. But let him do it credibly. There are 80,000 subscribers in TSO. Of them, 30,000 are on line at any given time, let's say. How many of them are teenage witches, teenage cyber prostitutes or BDSM practitioners? They are a minority. They are not typical. In fact, if you ask some of the teenagers in the game what they think of all this stuff, they'll look at you funny and say they get to do this stuff in real life, so they don't need the Sims to do it. That's the sad thing.
My hoax is not a bizarre conspiracy, but a routine spike, a set-up. We now see that we have Jason Blair on our hands. We now have to re-examine every interview and ask where it really comes from. My point was merely to illustrate that hard reality. This is not the easy task for lazy journalists that you all thought it would be. You will be unable, for example, to write an accurate history of the Sims Shadow Government because you cannot write it merely from the point of view of victims or executioners, it's like trying to write a history of Republika Srbska.
What are we studying here, after all? The reports of simulated beings about their fantasies? Well, that's OK, study that. Group dynamics of simulated beings, online rituals? Well, study that too. But that's not what Uri is puporting to study. He's purporting to study "the seamy side of life in Alphavile," like a tabloid reporter, with all kinds of ginned-up outrage along the way, replete with his own angry-citizen letters to Maxis about abusive little boys violating RL law, so he's reporter, journalist, editor, and letter-to-the-editor *all in one*. That's not credible. So what's this really about?
That is the persona he has adapted, and that is how he confirms his mission on PBS and other media outlet. So let's not get too precious here. He is playing the role of Geraldo, and what my group is here to do is to show that Geraldo has some fake material on his hand, and real media have to take a closer look. Even the story of his own "banning" from Maxis is one that has become horribly distorted and misreported all along the way, and magnified by million blogs, when we all know that a minor technicality enabled Maxis to act, and that he overcame it easily and got back in the game.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 24, 2004 at 18:29
Dyerbrook, it's sort of interesting that here you say this: "Even when I played a teenage girl for 10 days, the worst thing that happened to me is that some randy old goat asked me if I had any panties on and gave me his real-life web site address with his real e-mail."
but over on the AVH you said this:
"the way in which adults in this game make blatant sexual overtures to other Sims, either not realizing they are only 15-year-olds, or else knowing, and not caring. I must say I hadn't seen much of that before, but playing as the young Selene, I got IM'd all over the place, i.e. one time, within minutes of meeting a certain Sim I was asked if I was wearing any panties, told about debauchery, etc. This is the reality of TSO."
Which story are you going with here?
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 24, 2004 at 20:40
Well, it's the exact same story, there's no divergence to play "gotcha" about here, Peter. The point is, it isn't pleasant to be asked if you are wearing panties, if you want to get naked, etc. etc. so I'm commenting on that. It was shocking to me, and perhaps the shock has worn off after a few days. I did indeed get those IMs, from adults who perhaps didn't know better, and perhaps later, from adults who should have known better. And it's the same point, that yes, it's awful, its shocking, but what *did* happen? It was an obscene letter, in the end, not even an obscene phone call. Is that actionable? I don't know. Is it disturbing? Surely.Is it enough for the feds to come charging in the door and arrest somebody? Hardly. That was my point. It's soul-killing. It's sad. But it's not actionable.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 24, 2004 at 20:53
shock wore off over a few days? Well, if this blog is on Pacific time, then just about the time you were positing your no-big-deal just-a-randy-old-goat comment here (Jan. 24, 3:29 PM), you were saying the following over on AVH:
"Well, I could send the screenshots. But I don't want to embarrass the parties involved. They know who they are. And they'd say they didn't know Selene was just 15. Now they are probably searching for their barf bag now that they have found out it's me. Well, it's the Sims..."
Posted by Dyerbrook at January 24, 2004 06:43 PM "
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 24, 2004 at 21:16
What's your point? First you compare two different posts on two different sites and two different times, then you switch to comparing two different posts at the same time. Well, which is it, Uri, and does it matter. Indeed, the shock wears off. But I guess you keep coming back, don't you, Peter? The point is, at the very top of this blog, I was reminded of this: "Since this sexual activity involves real money, an under-age protagonist, and the violation of a serious number of federal and state sexual solicitation statutes, it's your required reading for the day. Call it research" That made me think as I was posting here: but is it really such a big deal like *that*?
And as I began to think about it, I made the comment "no big deal", because when you come down to it, all I have is an obscene IM, and nothing else. Because I can't imagine that because some old coot has the hots for some pixelated hottie and IM'd her some proposition that the feds should come banging down his door (assuming Selene was real, which she wasn't). Maxis should not release his private information to the feds, and I don't feel it is my role to blow him into the feds, let's say, for the sake of argument. But yet, it is disturbing, and I said that in all my posts. His alibi is that he may not have known. I can't be sure. Did he know and not care? Did others who IM me on lots know and don't care? I don't see any discontinuity between all these thoughts simultaneously, and I don't see what your point is, except to peer at date stamps in your blog in a last-ditch desperate attempt to try to distract from my larger valid points. Yes, it's shocking. Yes, the shock wears off. No, I don't want to embarrass the parties involved -- it's entrapment *for no good reason* (unlike the spoofing of you with a fake Sim, which served the public interest). And no, I don't think it really could be equalified as the kind of "serious solicitation" type of crime mentioned at the top of this blog. But let those in authority sort this out. It's indeed very troubling. And it is one of the reasons I have called for an adult server, and why the rating of this game should be reviewed.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 24, 2004 at 21:39
Where I get confused with this conversation is that I’m not sure what The Alphaville Herald (TAH) is supposed to be and thus what context I’m supposed to read it in.
If TAH is ‘just’ a blog, then I guess its fine for Peter et al to put up things like the Selene Moon interview as is and readers are free to take it or leave it just as one does with a blog.
If the TAH is supposed to be taken as real journalism then one would expect general benchmarks like the three independent sources test to be applied.
Then again TAH could be part of a wider academic thing, which could be one of many things e.g. it might be that its not the correctness of what it puts that is of prime importance but more the effects that it has on the wider community, hence this post itself would become part of the wider study.
I’ve just looked at TAH and it does not make clear what exactly it is. Personally I think TAH would be most interesting if it did pursue the line of applying usual journalist standards to this VW; but if this is the case then I do think that Dyerbrook’s basic points need to be addressed (irrespective of other posts or methods that they have used).
So is it possible to move on from the tit-for-tat and discuss whether TAH attempts to uphold a set of journalistic standards or not and whether it should do, we should also accept that even big news papers with large staff get spoofed sometimes.
Ren
Posted by: Ren | Jan 25, 2004 at 07:52
Thanks Ren, excellent steering post and excellent topic.
I tend to think of TAH in the following way:
"Then again TAH could be part of a wider academic thing, which could be one of many things e.g. it might be that its not the correctness of what it puts that is of prime importance but more the effects that it has on the wider community, hence this post itself would become part of the wider study. "
More broadly, I'm interested in the way that the community responds to it, and also the philosophical issues that it dredges up: For example, questions about identity (is it a 15 year old or not), community, and the defeasibility of knowledge claims in an environment where spoofing and fabrication is so easily accomplished. How does community checking respond to error that it locates in the blog and is it successful at error correction.
The most amazing thing to me by far is that people people in the game take TAH so seriously. It never occurred to me in the beginning to think of it as a real newspaper. I thought it was just a fun little fan site where I could roleplay as a reporter, archive interviews with people I found interesting, and maybe use them as thought pieces to reflect on philosophical issues. But after people started treating it so seriously I wondered if it hadn't been transformed into a real newspaper just by people's perceptions. (it is not so different from the issue of how game currency becomes real or how a language like Clingon or Gorian become real.)
Is it a newspaper now? If it is, is it a serious newspaper like the NYT or is it closer to Alphaville's Drudge Report or the Alphaville Enquirer. I honestly don't know the answer to any of these questions but I find them incredibly fascinating.
I'm also amazed by how I get sucked into things. For a moment I was actually angry at Dyerbrook, but then I remembered why I was there and realized that his anti-TAH campaign is all grist for the philosophical mill.
Whatever the journalistic or sociological or anthropological merits of TAH, philosophically it has been a gold mine, and that's really the only level on which I'm qualified to evaluate it.
...and meanwhile, whatever TAH is, it seems like it keeps uncovering real and sometimes important stories (the failure of TSO, the breakdown of the ESRB rating system etc.) that get picked up not only in blogspace, but by "official" news organizations (and there are lots more of those in the works too). I'm fascinated by that too.
It will take smarter people than me to figure out everything that is going on here.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 25, 2004 at 13:24
Hmmm.
i doubt that it is really feasible to implement real world journalistic standards in a context where the virtual reality is preciely that -- virtual. Everything in TSO is to some degree fake ... the question is, where would you draw the line between "generically fake" (ie no more fake than the virtual genre requires) and something more like "deliberately fake" -- it seems had line to draw and this is in part what Dyerbrook appears to have been trying to do when impersonting Selene.
To me, there is a difference between a fake alter ego, on the one hand, ad a predesigned hoax character on the other, and so the case of Selene seems an easier one to me. I am sure, however, that there are other cases where it would be extremely difficult to apply any standard on this.
It seems to me that the rules for journalistic activity in a virtual world must of necessity differ from those applicable to real worl journalism because of the context.
Having said tht, i think that TAH serves a fine purpose as a blog and as a forum for discussion and debate as it is.
Kelli
Posted by: TSKELLI | Jan 25, 2004 at 13:44
Yes, I, too am grateful for this frame, and glad that Urizenus has finally turned off his shaking-fist interaction and enemy balloon and realized that the purpose of all this is to have *an interesting discussion* and that the game itself is so excruciatingly dull and frustrating, by turns, that AVH (or TAH if you want to be precise) indeed took on a greater social role than anything a garden-variety fan site could have imagined.
"I wondered if it hadn't been transformed into a real newspaper just by people's perceptions."
You would think that fake, simulated people in a fantasy worl wouldn't need something like a real newspaper, with all its boring and necessary accoutrements. But you would be wrong. You probably didn't even notice my in-game parody of Alphaville Herald, called Omegaville Herald, run by Yeragenius Zones, but he was a little experiment to test a theory if a totally sealed, in-game newspaper could succeed. Maybe it can (I had a mixture of sensational and positive stories and letters to the editor plus daily tickers on the price of simoleons on ebay), but it is too much work alone or with even 2 other helpers, and too hard to maintain due to the greening and host needs of the lot. This is one of the reasons why I have always asked Maxis to have the offbeat or entertainment lots have a really suspended greening needs atmosphere to enable people to be more creative in the game, where it is needed.
Another SimAlbums member started "Omega Brief, The Last Word in Alphaville" during the beta, but she was frustrated by the limited communication facilities in the game -- stories had to be like 150 words on those restaurant poster boards or put on a Sim profile -- you couldn't distribute the paper to more than a few at a time (Maxis won't let you make lots of IMs in a row, and keeps stopping you), or had to cry it out like an old fashioned newsboy to no more than 18 people on a lot. The in-game radio stations never grasped their role as news and commentary purveyos, they are like Clear Channel music niche finders.
Then I had a site that tried to provide an out-of-game commentary and news alternative to the heavy propaganda of the Sim Shadow Government, but it was too much work, and I was bombarded with hate actions in the game.
So I view the AVH as a very critical development, and one in which the intellectuals and meta-gamers of AV at first greeted, but then became bitterly disenchanted with, without any effort of dialogue from Urizenus. The arts and culture crowd in AV, that could have been the greatest boosters of AVH, who didn't want it to become some silly fanzine about pretty pets and funny tilyu drop contests at first were interested, but then concluded that it was worse than a tabloid; it was more like a 6th grade slam-book.
Yes, readers matter, and they often force a newspaper to become better than it is, and not play to merely craven notions of sensationalism.
You don't have to have three sources -- even two would do. Even when I work for crappy Russian newspapers and radios, we sort of have an undertanding that really, we can get by with one source but if we have something that doesn't smell right or seems really incendiary, we should cover our asses and find a second source even if all it does is reprint the first source LOL. This is certainly not the standards of American journalism but it might do for a game...
A frame at the start of the story summarizing the 4-6 contrary positions on any given story seems a must-have public service. Some credible attention to the "five Ws" would also be in order. The urgent public need for the public service of AVH came about because of the severe problem in press freedom that developed on the Stratics board (and the old Maxis boards). A public experiment in building a society, even if a game, with that many people, has to have a more credible communications system than Maxis has given it. Urizenus upped his readership probably 10 fold or more by becoming a victim of the Maxis censorship machinery in ways many others had, who didn't have access to game blogs and salon.com because they didn't have the title "Professor" or the word "philosophy" in their titles
So let's hope that Urizenus will rise to this occasion, and see if he can get some of those lazy journalists of his at AVH to stop trying to set off firecrackers with denizens of the leather set to see if all the bales of hay on his lot will catch fire and create that Hell he secretly craves, and see if they can't cover a story...
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 25, 2004 at 13:50
On January 25, 2004 10:24 AM Peter Ludlow wrote:
>More broadly, I'm interested in the way that the community responds to it, and also the philosophical issues that it dredges up
Interesting, but does this not raise a bunch of methodological and ethical issues.
Methodologically the fact that you create TAH seems to make objectivity difficult and mixes issues of your intentionality with the artefact and its effects – analysis must be a nightmare.
Ethically you can certainly be seen to be on very thin ice (note I’m am just suggesting possible perceptions here not making comment on your actual stance as I do not know what it is) as TAH, given the stories that it covers and the way that it covers them, could be seen provoking reactions in a social group for the sake of an experiment.
So I can certainly see TAH role as a research tool, but given the aims it does not seem a necessary tool, indeed personally I would find the analysis of pre-existing / emerging artefacts of this type to be much easier resources to work with.
>For example, questions about identity (is it a 15 year old or not), community, and the defeasibility of knowledge claims in an environment where spoofing and fabrication is so easily accomplished.
Oh I totally agree with the first of these aims, my philosophical work in centred on the nature of identity and I sooo want us get beyond Turkle.
As to the more epistemological angle, this is fascinating too, though for me not from the defeasibility angle but more from the idea of competing socially constructed truths, which of course links with identity well as many knowledge claims have some individual or social identity element in their framework.
>Is it a newspaper now? If it is, is it a serious newspaper like the NYT or is it closer to Alphaville's Drudge Report or the Alphaville Enquirer. I honestly don't know the answer to any of these questions but I find them incredibly fascinating.
I want to push you on this one – and this is not at all an attack it’s a request of clarification. Personally I’d really like to know and really like TAH to state where it stands. It seems that there is a perception gap at the moment; at first glance TAH reads much more like NYT than the Enquirer, it has the feel of objectivity, a serious writing style with a high reading age etc though the selection of subjects could be characterised as some what tabloid at times.
Now I’m not suggesting that TAH goes one way or the other, it would just be nice to know – and I guess my unease at the ‘identity’ of TAH itself is an yet another philosophical topic.
Ren
Posted by: Ren | Jan 25, 2004 at 15:14
January 25, 2004 10:44 AM TSKELLI wrote
>i doubt that it is really feasible to implement real world journalistic standards in a context where the virtual reality is preciely that -- virtual.
I don’t see why and I don’t see that you provide grounds. If for instance I am communicating with you in a VW then I either do or do not type something, if one had access then one could no doubt go through logs and find out whether the typing occurred or not. The issues about say identity and intentionality are different e.g. if I am playing a ‘bad’ character and you and ‘innocent’ and physically I’m a young teen and you’re a mature adult – then yes there are all kinds of questions about what would be going in on that dialog, but some facts could be verified, indeed verification would be easier than reporting on a verbal conversation that we might have, so in some ways one might expect that higher standards could pertain in VWs.
>To me, there is a difference between a fake alter ego, on the one hand, ad a predesigned hoax character on the other, and so the case of Selene seems an easier one to me. I am sure, however, that there are other cases where it would be extremely difficult to apply any standard on this.
Which does not mean that things are impossible but that they contextual. There are many instances where we foreground the role rather than the individual identity – the acts of police or other official are judged by standards based on role irrespective of person. Similarly sports reporters manage to report on activities where individuals are routinely hurting each other but the context of a contact sport is taken into account.
What I think we need to do is come to terms more fully with the context of VWs and this needs to be done on a case by case basis, I think that TAH forms a very useful role in getting us to question these things. And more grandly I think that as social interaction generally occurs so much in mediates spaces I think that at common understanding of the context of those spaces and how the frame communication, acts, bonds etc is of prime importance these days.
Ren
Posted by: Ren | Jan 25, 2004 at 15:28
Ren asks:
"Methodologically the fact that you create TAH seems to make objectivity difficult and mixes issues of your intentionality with the artefact and its effects – analysis must be a nightmare."
I've thought about this, and what I wanted to do was get away from the idea of TAH as dispassionate observer of the place. I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist so I don't know what constrains their methodology, but I was not describing what I saw but trying to understand the underlying principles and structures that gave rise to what I saw. So I had questions of the form "what would happen if..." and I felt that if I was a factor in the game it would make it possible to not only ask those questions and speculate but set up the circumstances I was interested and see for myself. (Example, how would the community respond to a satanic church? Set one up and find out. How would it respond to a newspaper. same thing).
other question:
"I want to push you on this one – and this is not at all an attack it’s a request of clarification. Personally I’d really like to know and really like TAH to state where it stands. It seems that there is a perception gap at the moment; at first glance TAH reads much more like NYT than the Enquirer, it has the feel of objectivity, a serious writing style with a high reading age etc though the selection of subjects could be characterised as some what tabloid at times."
The style is not really thought out, but just reflects the subjects that Urizenus is interested in and is written in the only writing style he knows. That lends itself to a kind of strange NYT/Enquirer ambiguity, I know. Notice the switch to talk about Urizenus here too. The paper is still written in character and there is an odd sense in which the character drives this.
I've talked about this a lot with my colleague David Velleman who is a philosopher that works on personal identity, ethics, etc. His take is that personal identity in r/l is really tied to narratives that we "write" about ourselves. Our avatars are then a kind of fanfic narrative extension of our "real" self-naratives.
The question that both Velleman and I are interested in is whether one doesn't feel a kind of logic in the narative of the characters that underly our avatars. The behavior of an avatar isn't like our own, but it isn't completely open ended either. It's really interesting to think about what exactly governs this logic and makes the behavior of our avatars to determined at times.
This is also a question that Uri tries to pursue with his interview subjects. For example, he is especially interested in the logic governing the griefer avatars in alphaville. It turns out that they feel there is a kind of strict logic govening how their avatars can behave. The interview with Celestie the abusive granny was particularly illuminating on this point. The interview with Evangeline was also interesting in this regard (although it is an overlooked part of that interview).
I'd be interested in knowing if contributors to TN feel the same pull in their avatars.
This doesn't answer the question about what the newspaper is (Times or Enquirer). You would have to ask urizenus I guess, and I'm pretty sure he has no idea either. :)
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 25, 2004 at 16:18
Peter> The interview with Evangeline was also interesting in this regard (although it is an overlooked part of that interview).
Could that have something to do with the story being headlined “Evangeline: Interview with a Child cyber-Prostitute”, rather than “A long, mostly boring interview with a Sim griefer”? I’m curious as to who wrote that inflammatory headline? Peter the professor, or Urizenus the tabloid journalist? Who got banned from Alphaville, was it Urizenus or Peter? Did Salon, and hence the NYT, pick up the story because of Urizenus’s reputation, or those of Peter the Professor?
Seems to me there are some serious ethical and identity questions going on here in the transition from character to player. Urizenus can toss out journalistic standards and serious news judgement because he is a role played yellow journalist. But as Brian points out, this tabloid headline, taken out of the game world, could have real consequences. The perception that VW’s are a haven for perverts, and require a level of monitoring that would drive Brian out of business. Would this story have had the legs it did without Peter’s “serious” reputation in the everyday world?
As I see it, “playing” a character quite unlike yourself can give you license to do things you wouldn’t do with your “real world” character. But then when there are consequences to that, perhaps you should take the consequences in character. Suddenly switching to your real world persona to complain seems a bit shaky. Urizenus may complain about getting banned. And if Professor Ludlow had done an academically respectable study of cyber sex in The Sims, he would be very right to complain about being banned. But Professor Ludlow standing up for Urizenus being banned is I think on much shakier ground.
Posted by: Hellinar | Jan 26, 2004 at 00:21
Peter,
I am still struggling with TAH as a research tool. It seems problematic in a whole number of ways. I guess I’m having difficulty, in part, because I’m not sure exactly what your research agenda is.
On January 25, 2004 01:18 PM Peter Ludlow wrote:
>>Ren asks:
>>"Methodologically the fact that you create TAH seems to
>>make objectivity difficult and mixes issues of your
>>intentionality with the artefact and its effects –
>>analysis must be a nightmare."
>I've thought about this, and what I wanted to do was
>get away from the idea of TAH as dispassionate observer
>of the place. I'm not a sociologist or anthropologist so I don't
>know what constrains their methodology.
But TAH and the study of the ripples that it creates is a form of ethnography isn’t it – which is a social science methodology which is indeed used by sociologists and anthropologists.
So even if it is the case that you are not practicing one of these disciplines the data gathering techniques you are using are based within them hence the limitation on the methods as spelt out in the literature on ethnography seems relevant to what ever study you do on the data.
However I still fail to see the methodological advantages of making interventions into the TSO community.
>but I was not describing what I saw but trying to understand
>the underlying principles and structures that gave rise to what I saw.
OK, but to make a naturalist argument by intervening rather than observing you are looking at situations which otherwise might not have been, which seems to make things way more complex. Sure one can make an argument about testing inputs and outputs through a set of experiments but with social systems this is fraught with issues.
>So I had questions of the form "what would happen if..." and I
>felt that if I was a factor in the game it would make it possible
>to not only ask those questions and speculate but set up
>the circumstances I was interested and see for myself. (Example
> how would the community respond to a satanic church? Set
>one up and find out. How would it respond to a newspaper
> same thing).
Quite apart from the methodological complexities I wonder – is this ethical ?
Or more procedurally would / has this got through a research ethics committee ?
This of course is a general question about this type of research and particularly internet based research where community intervention is relatively easy. I find the question of satanic church’s or any other type in VWs interesting but I can’t see this as a justification for setting one up in an actual online community just for the purposes of an experiment to find out.
However as I say I don’t know the nature of your research, I have looked at your web site and cannot find a link to this as a project – is there a publicly available statement of the research study in particular its aims and methods ?
Ren
Posted by: Ren | Jan 26, 2004 at 08:59
OK, let me tell you what all has happened as I have experienced it, from my point of view:
1. I found the Alphaville Herald (AVH) and read it with interest, because it wasn't hindered by all the rules governing the official TSO message boards (especially on the old site). You could talk about and read about bad players and bad things that happened without worry about getting your post pulled, and I felt there was truth to be had there.
2. I learned Urizenus had been banned. I immediately posted an outraged thread about that on the official message boards.
3. Several other posters and I discussed this on the thread, and it was determined that Urizenus had been banned because he had mentioned the AVH in his property profile, and that on the AVH were links to cheat sites. It was against the rules for a person to advertise on his profiles any site that linked to a cheat site. (It was also against the rules to discuss account actions on the site, but we managed to do so.)
4. Then I spent a good deal of time getting the Maxis employees to explain to what degree of separation this rule applied, because I'd seen it happen to other players, and I was sick of it. Would you be banned if you mentioned your site when then linked to a site which then linked to a site, etc., with cheat sites? The answer was finally given: No, it was just one degree of separation. The professor had mentioned the AVH, which had on it links to the cheat sites; thus, one degree of separation.
5. Urizenous himself stated on the official TSO boards, that he had "plum forgot" to remove the mention of AVH from his property descriptions within the game. So I went and checked AVH, and sure enough, those cheat links were still there. (Later on in this saga, though, he morphed into plum forgetting about about having plum forgot.)
6. Next, I began to question the Maxis people regarding the amount of time he had been given to remove those links, even though I knew that they can legally take any steps they like. But I didn't continue with that approach, because the professor then sniped at me on the message board, and so I said there that if he couldn't even tell who was on his side and I was giving up on his case.
7. The professor began to get national coverage. I knew this would happen, and had warned on the official boards that it would. I basically begged them to work with him, because I didn't want the game to get all this bad press. Since that time, though, I have decided that it wouldn't have mattered if they had bent over backwards to reinstate his Urizenous character; he would get himself banned and then get his coverage no matter what.
8. By that time, the story was being reported that he was banned because he linked to the AVH, period, according to some media coverage. The details I have outlined above became left out. The professor himself continued to affirm that he believed he was banned because of the nature of his newspaper.
9. Because I have played the game a long time and because I've seen this happen to other people, and because I followed the details of his banning AS IT WAS HAPPENING, I believe this was not the case. I believe one of his enemies noticed he was breaking this rule, and reported him for it. Simple as that. It's happened to other people far less important than him.
10. Soon we had media coverage all over the world to the effect that TSO is nothing but a haven for underage cybersex and mafia and the other unsavory things the professor is interested in; and virtually the only things his AVH covers.
11. The professor was especially interested in the case of the famous AV scammer, Evangeline and all of his alts. Now this person is a truly sociopathic personality who would stand out in any game or in any mileau. In other words, this one person, out of 80k or however many subscribers the game has, and the things he told Urizenous, became almost single-handedly the centerpiece for worldwide coverage. Bear in mind, too, that this character Evangeline is already a notorious liar.
12. I was not in AV during the days when Evangeline purportedly ran the brothel. He no longer runs it.
13. What we have, then, is world-wide coverage based largely on one mentally ill player's online conversations with the professor.
14. Along comes Dyerbrook and sets up a fake Sim and the professor interviews that Sim, just as he did Evangeline. Draw your own conclusions between this point and number 13 point. It wasn't hard for me to.
15. I continued to post on the AVH herald now and then. However, in the past two days, I was startled when someone called thanksaloturi posted something, and the professor immediately replied with, "Now now Coco, you needn't hide behind fake screen names here. We know you hate me, but we accept you anyway." I couldn't believe he thought I was that person. I waited a day or so and it became clear from other posts that people were thinking he meant me. Apparently the Dyerbrook sting made the professor a little over-paranoid.
16. So I posted that I was not that other person, that the professor had reached a new low in assuming I was, and explained about my AOL and my screen names, and all my player and avatar names, and the fact that I was Cocoanut in all of them and in all of my online games. I said that the professor should not have assumed that I was the person thanksaloturi.
17. He then replied with, "yes yes of course, coco. Now does this mean that you've decided to stay and be an unpaid content provider for me? Happy to hear that. Carry on." I can tell you I was shocked to hear that from someone with the academic credentials the professor has.
From all that I have experienced and witnessed with this over the past months, having started out with a desire for justice for the professor and rights of free speech, I have moved into a lack of respect for the professor - his logic, his scientific methodology or lack thereof, his "journalism", his sense of perspective, and his motives - except insofar as he has managed not to ban anyone from his "free speech" site yet, and if I wanted to, I could probably say all this on his AVH site. For that much, I commend him.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | Jan 26, 2004 at 11:31
1. Urizenus did ban me from his site for one evening, even blocking two of my ISP addresses as I kept posting, so I can see his instincts are those of the censor.
2. I also believe that in a VW, there are some underlying "rules" or structures, although my God, please don't say they are embedded in children's brains at birth like that little fascist, Chomsky. As I wrote to Uri off-list, if he wanted to make a satanist lot to be kewl to hang out with the kids and get to know some subjects to interview, that's one thing, but that isn't what he explained to the smarter, longer-playing Sims like myself. He said he was doing it "because the game was boring" and "to get a reaction" like a sort of uber-griefer.
3. I said if he wanted to run a newspaper, he needed to put himself in the Sim suit with the blue cardigan or the glasses and put typewriters on his lot, not stones and altars for black Masses. There was a great deal of confusion in the transition from Church of Mephistophles to AV Herald. If he called his pub "Notes from the Hellfire Club" or something that signalled it was the Village Voice of TSO, not trying to be the USA Today of TSO and report on a variety of issues (the economy, etc.) it would be more comprehensible to the community.
4. Uri wasn't in the game during beta when Evangeline ran the Hotel Erotica. I once visited it (for reporting purposes hehehehe) and found Dorian (the old Evangeline) sitting on the porch propositioning visitors. But it was just like her FREE MONEY FOR NEWBIES scam house. Rubes came in thinking they were going to have an exciting cybersex session in IMs. Instead, she asked you to pay up front, and if you paid an amount too low, you were pile-drived and humiliated. If you tried to pay more, you'd be further humiliated, and she'd send her pimps after you to piledrive you some more, back when you couldn't press "accept" in the interactions so that your Sim would red out and lose energy. I remember sending second and third Sims of mine over to investigate her operation, and finally threatened her/him with reporting to Maxis -- I sensed that it was a boy, not a girl, and underage -- we saw a lot of boys come in early in the game and play as really aggressive girls, it was one of the first things that happened when the mall rats were let loose on TSO, an interesting phenom of its own. I don't know whether Maxis banned Hotel Erotica, which was the buzz on everyone's lips in those days, but it was wiped in the server wipe, closed, not reopened, so that by the time Urizenus interviewed the new incarnation of this boy typist, it was ancient history, and therefore not reflective of life in TSO. Indeed there is cyberprostitution in TSO, of sorts (typing obscene letters and making some obscene glosses on normal Sim interactions) but I doubt anyone could get rich even converting their simoleons to dollars on ebay. Uri thinks that because there is some truth about this in TSO, that we don't have to pick away too much at his Evangeline reporting, because it is a "social truth" -more of the "community journalism" type of approach we find on disreputable sites like Indymedia.
5. Because Uri can't admit when he's been hoaxed, he has tried to turn this around and say he has merely had a good report on wiccan from someone who changed their avatar's name and gender. I point out that he doesn't have a faithful, well-researched report on wiccan at all. The wiccans themselves complained that he didn't check Selene's claims with them. Selene makes false claims mixed with true claims in order to make her hoax credible.
6. Uri thinks he can combine all the social rolls of professor, journalist, ethnographer, anthropologist, police detective, and citizen complainer in one fabulous avatar-extended-to-human larger-than-life media-blitz Internet entity because he's just doing this FABULOUS thing called studying online games, the ne plus ultra of philosophy studies today. Well, it's a load of crap. No sale.
7. When Uri begins to talk about defeasibility of identity yada yada it's not that it's MEGO material, it's that it's some fancy footwork to try to dance his way out of admitting he is a hoax victim. Nice save, Uri! Now all of a sudden we're studying identity formations and group reactions? But I thought we were studying communications and games. When Uri talks about the pull on his avatar, I wonder if in fact we aren't having other things of ours pulled -- let's put it nicely, like wool over our eyes.
"There are more things in this world than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Uri is a victim of so many things -- fads, trends, the Internet sickness, TSO addiction, the Closing of the American Mind, the crisis in university education. He is best playing in an electronic sandbox and molding the young minds in his chage to whatever wacky ideology he is floating at the moment, but as soon as other educated, thinking adults come along to challenge this inanity, all he can do is scream, and let them be overrun by savages (like the BDSM mob over at AVH). Bye for now, Uri, I'm going ice-fishing. It's the season for it. You should try it, because at least when you get something hook, line, and sinker you can eat it for dinner.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 26, 2004 at 12:48
Good lord, Alphaville is spilling out everywhere.
Coco, my point was that if you want to protect the image of Alphaville as this really nice place with mostly nice people, you and Dyerbrook are not going to accomplish that by spamming my board and every board you find to complain about me and the AVH. All you are doing is bringing more eyeballs to my blog and to Alphaville, and the more people that come to the blog and enter Alphaville the more people that are going to see what a horrible vile snake pit it has become. This doesn't have to do with Evangeline, or even scammers like Celestie, Isabella, Julia, and Eliana, or about the cyber-brothels and racist welcome house. Alphaville is crawling with "real" reporters now. They don't need me to describe that stuff anymore. The real story is about you and Dyerbrook and the other "good" citizens of Alphaville and how the game of the "good citizens" has morphed into this sick game of deception and intrigue, perhaps to destroy the property of an enemy or ex-lover, or perhaps to undermine the popularity of someone higher than you in the "most popular sim" rankings, or perhaps to discredit some philosophy professor about whose work you know nothing. If you were really interested in getting out the good news about Alphaville you would start your own blog, but no, the goal here seems to have nothing to do with that. Rather you've chosen the path of griefing and character assassination. Well, carry on. The disintigration of Alphaville seems to have achieved a force and logic of its own, and your actions are only consistent with that as far as I can tell. And all I can really do is watch and keep recording this disaster until the end comes.
Posted by: Peter Ludlow | Jan 26, 2004 at 12:51
Can I ask you guys [at the risk of being called an oppressive censor] to take this to a more appropriate site? This thread has been stuck for a long time. Let's move on or over or something.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Jan 26, 2004 at 13:11
And just when it was finally getting interesting, huh? I can understand why Prof. Castronova wants to engage in "defense of the honor of the uniform" here. But why does our intellectual discourse get downgraded to "spam" or "spillover" from Alphaville just because we aren't in your circle and don't agree with Ludlow's posturing personas? Crucial issues of Urizenus'/Ludlow's identity confusion and actions are raised here by others, not just by us, and are the proper subject of peer review and determination by the public at large as to whether this is legitimate academic work. And making a spoof Sim to illustrate that his methodologies are suspect -- they amount to recording the noise of games, true and false, like recording the noise of outerspace, looking for intelligent life -- should not be written of as merely another form of evil griefing in the evil soup of TSO. Why are we cannibals and griefers because we've hoaxed someone who was about perpetrate a hoax all on YOU with a book about groups in games?! We do have our own sites and blogs, and we don't need to clutter up this one. We are moving on. But not without defending our discourse as intelligent, reasoned, and properly challenging of Ludlow's claims -- not spam inappropriately glommed on a highfalutin game philosophy blog.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | Jan 26, 2004 at 14:41
I have said all of my piece to date. But P.S. I had nothing to do with the hoax. I also have nothing to do with the activities such as terrorizing neighbors that you mention, either. I report to the people on this board the truth as I see it. They can take it or leave it.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | Jan 26, 2004 at 15:14
on at January 26, 2004 10:11 AM Edward Castronova wrote:
>This thread has been stuck for a long time. Let's move on or over or something.
Well I kind of agree on the he did this then I did that front. However I’m still very interested in the nature and ethics of the research methods being used - I think that the way that academics treat virtual worlds is interesting and important to discuss.
I am not stating that Peter’s methods are wrong or un-ethical I am saying that from the information that I can find there seem to be a number of serious questions to be asked and a number of negative conclusions that be drawn from the way things can appear.
When I offered my three frames earlier it seemed to me that if TAH was ‘just’ a blog then it was relatively unproblematic. However presenting it as an academic research tool invites a whole different set of issues and questions – given the interdisciplinary nature of TN this seems a fair place to discuss them.
I duddo maybe we should hop over to gamesnetwork or AoIR lists which are more pure academic places – I’d certainly like to continue the discussion and don’t particularly care where.
Ren
Posted by: Ren | Jan 26, 2004 at 17:13
sajdgbklajsbos oaisfj poasdfj oasjf poasij foasd
Posted by: adsf | Jan 27, 2004 at 04:24
Your analogy with the NBA wow powerleveling player is merely misleading. And what we're actually doing is attacking Uri's METHODOLOGY, not the idea of surveys and interviews of Sims about the seamy goings-on in AV where there are a lot of tall basketball players (and a lot of tellers of tall world of warcraft power leveling tales).
Posted by: Jude | Apr 14, 2007 at 22:30