Several of us are in Milwaukee at Command Lines today (it's open to the public), exploring "the diverse ways
in which governance is both implemented and emerging within cyberspace." So it's quite timely that James Grimmelmann of Yale Law School has just posted Virtual Power Politics on SSRN.
First few sentences:
Every decision made by the designers of a virtual world is a political decision. Every debate over the rules and every change to the software is political. When players talk about the rules, they are practicing politics.
Last couple paragraphs:
If my argument has seemed familiar in places, that is because it is not exactly novel. My analysis of the effect and meaning of software is just a reiteration of familiar (if contested) claims about the effect and meaning of law. Perhaps it is easier to see the clash of interests and the social construction of meaning where virtual world games are concerned. They are virtual, after all: they depend on an explicit agreement among the players. The possibility of software bugs makes more obvious the need for after-the-fact interpretation of ambiguities in that agreement. And the fact that they are games foregrounds both the sense of competition and the complete arbitrariness of the rules governing that competition.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that I am arguing that virtual worlds are somehow different from real ones. Any perceived difference is illusory. These worlds may be virtual, but their politics are wholly real.
The essay is forthcoming in a book by NYU Press. And if you haven't James's other piece on virtual world law and governance, Virtual Worlds as Comparative Law, I would recommend that as well.
The points I want to make this morning fit nicely with the points in both of James's papers. I want to discuss game spaces as separate legal jurisdictions that create and enforce their own rules, and are entitled to some degree of deference by courts. Does the Supreme Court of Norrath seem like a strange idea? Certainly--but it should be noted that there is a newsworthy Methodist Supreme Court that enforces Methodist law.
There isn't a constitutional establishment clause in the case of games, of course, but consider Ga. High Sch. Ass'n v. Waddell, 285 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ga. 1981), where the Georgia Supreme Court states that: "[C]ourts of equity in this state are without authority to review decisions of football referees because those decisions do not present judicial controversies."
As far a rules or "laws" go I think players will only follow what rules they are forced to follow. If developers want to enforce rules or laws in their VWs then it needs to be in the design. If players find a loophole or bug in the code most players will exploit it.
I think some server communities enforce their own sort of vigilante justice. If a player "ninja loots" an item from your guild or breaks any other unwritten rule they could easily be blacklisted by dozens of players and many guilds. It is like breaking a rule of a social code. Players can not directly punish you but they can choose to ignore you.
Posted by: Seth Sivak | Apr 29, 2005 at 08:35
On a scale of 1 to 10, my level of agreement with Grimmelman's thesis is 10. As for the idea of mogs as a separate jurisdiction worthy of respect from courts, the agreement level is 11. Today is a good day.
I may have to re-do my talk. "Yahoo avatars are totally awesome!!" is a popular theme here at TN, but it just doesn't seem weighty enough for this conference now.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Apr 29, 2005 at 08:36
Nicely done paper. One thing that isn’t mentioned though is the significance of the ease of entry into online worlds. The paper focuses on the effects of two competing groups in the world. But for the Designer, there is a third party contesting for the attention, the non-Players. A rule change may annoy both in world groups, but bring in so many new players that the Designer does it anyway. These are sometimes the most hotly contested rule changes. The current Natives, versus the Immigrants. Always an explosive political mixture.
Posted by: Hellinar | Apr 29, 2005 at 10:21
Just a quick note to say that Ted Wesp has some thoughts up on Ted Castronova's paper at printculture.com -- and a /wave to everyone I'm missing at the conference.
As for a response to Seth, I want to say, yes, the rules ARE in fact in the design. Though many of them are physical and therefore aren't experienced as rules at all (you can't jump 1,000 feet into the air in EQ; you take damage from falling, etc), others are "legalistic" and therefore get noticed, others are community-enforced (no ninja looting), and yet others (probably the ones I'm most interested) are structural and have to do with the way that the game incentivizes (sorry for using that word) certain forms of political, social, or narrative experience.
Posted by: Eric | Apr 29, 2005 at 20:19
Some rules will be implementable in code, but some won't be. For instance, you can't just write code to decide when someone has been too much of an asshole, and should be banned. You can't write code to determine a disputed agreement between two parties in the game.
These things have to be determined by some sort of legal norms, and the amazing thing about mogs is that the boundaries between what should be decided by user contract provisions, real-world law, and in-game law, are hard to discern. I think we will need to develop some common understanding on which of these should be used when.
For instance, I could see a system of arbitration developing, wherein a third-party arbitration organization specializing in online law for various types of games becomes respected enough that gamers and game developers both demand their contracts to contain provisions requiring arbitration through this organization's rules. In this way, you could develop a system whereby the arbitration organization would in effect by the trial court of first instance for online worlds...
Posted by: Trevor Hill | Apr 30, 2005 at 23:56
I agree with whomever says that people will only follow rules if they are forced to follow them. I got bitched at by a level 60 in Stormreaver (my character Popuri) because she thought I knew that I should let her have a chest. I killed one or two monsters to get to the chest, and she got all indignant on me because she thinks I "ninja"ed her on purpose. EXCUSE ME! I do not think she should have bitched at me for something I did not intentionally mean to do. I do not like people who think that just because you have a level 34 mage they assume you have a level 60 character as your main. Well, I had to find this site through Google, and I suggest you get something sent to the official WoW website because you all know that new players have to go there to create their accounts. Accidents and shit happen with no control over it. DO NOT ASSUME everyone knows about the unwritten codes! If you do not want to be "ninja looted" take it up with the WoW board and sort it out that way, then I could get back to having fun playing this game. Unwritten codes are a bunch of bologna unless you have already heard them. I only thought that "ninja looting" was in a group, but I guess you have to show respect to everyone even if you are not in a group. I hate people who flame in whisper chat because they think you know that they wanted something from a chest, herb, or mine or whatnot. As before, DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING about people you do not know. I get pissed off if someone tries to tell me I am wrong and they try to black ball me for a stupid mistake. It is not like I do not know not to take things when I am in a group. NO ONE EVER TELLS ME ANYTHING *CRYING MY EYES OUT*. There is no reason why I cannot try and make amends for making a harmless mistake. I did not hurt anyone. Whoever says they are hurt by someone taking something on a game, they need a serious dose of real world action by going to Chicago or New York City to know that there are worse things that could happen than someone who takes your chest on a game. It is not like you got raped or something. Why do people make such a big deal out of it? Like I said, you have to bring up your complaints about "ninja looting" with the WoW board and quit bitching about it in the forums or blogs. THANK YOU!
Posted by: Kristy Ripka | Oct 01, 2005 at 10:37
branlette espagnole
vagin
chate
penetration
fille
branlette minute
branlette entre
video branlette
bonne branlette
branlette gratuite
Posted by: niki | Jan 17, 2006 at 12:19
windows messenger sip
messenger windows 2000
messenger cam
messenger 7 hotmail
microsoft messenger 5
net messenger
messenger 7 plus
sms yahoo messenger
google instant messenger
messenger net
windows web messenger
comment supprimer windows messenger
aol instan messenger
webcam yahoo messenger 7
delete windows messenger
windows messenger 10
microsoft messenger version
yahoo messenger 7 patch
yahoo messenger aol
telecharger yahoo messenger 6
windows messenger beta
signed into aol r instant messenger tm
mcn
messenger blocker
mobile messenger
Posted by: chatavecmsn | Jan 27, 2006 at 10:13