« YABBCAARMT | Main | Collective Behavior and MMOG Political Economies »

Aug 08, 2005

Comments

1.

I'm sure we all support it. As it's gonna stay among the main events of the third millenium, why not listing it on the left-side upcoming conference panel also? Just in case you guys overlooked that ;)
Best of luck from Italy!
Riccardo

2.

Uh, guys, the usual question -- what about younger scholars, the ones of us who are still in grad programs? As usual, $500 is a steep ticket price for us. And I would love, love, LOVE to at least be a fly on the wall at this event.

3.

It's a valid point. Let's put it this way: Most academic conferences happen because somebody is sitting on big pots of money and a friend says 'hey why don't you do a conference.' That's not the situation here. There's a need to do a conference, and the organizer (me) does not happen to be sitting on a big pot of money.

(/whine I only got tenured last year after spending most of my career in a zero-grant area of economics so I don't have the big money contacts that other people do and I just got to Indiana and they didn't give me an office for six months and, and, and waa waa waa)

Whatever. I decided let's forget the vanity conference model and fund this thing out of the interests of the community. That's a better model anyway. If it produces something good, it will happen. If it doesn't, it will die a well-deserved death, something I wish lots of conferences I've been at would do.

The problem is that any such system is unfair to people who don't have travel budgets. But note: the pricing structure is intended to allow us to fund these people, including poor but worthy grad students, in the immediate future.

Gus: I can't do it this year, but I hope to be able to get people like you into this thing soon, maybe next year if the format flies.

Now the burden is on you to produce some awesome work on the topic ;> .

4.

Couldn't you have picked somewhere like the University of Hawaii or the University of the Cayman Islands to teach at instead Edward? ;)

--matt

5.

But to be on campus in late September... ivy-covered buildings, forested walkways, coffee shops and bistros, an interesting conversation at every turn...what could be better?

6.

Ted - congrats on getting the center off the ground and this conference going. It's quite an accomplishment.

The "ludium" idea is interesting (even if exceedingly high concept). As I understand it, the goal of the conference is specifically to identify research areas that might have "value and feasibility" -- i.e. that are fundable, and therefore fungible for some funding or sponsoring agency.

I'm wondering how this set of goals relates to the debate TL previously brought up here on TN after our scuffles at Other Players about seeking legitimacy. Where do you locate your research and the output of this conference or even your center in relation to this problem? Is there something "different" about synthetic worlds that aligns (or unaligns) such research with practice in a general sense?

7.

Matt->Couldn't you have picked somewhere like the University of Hawaii or the University of the Cayman Islands to teach at instead Edward? ;)

LOL! Well, I will say that, outside of tropical locations, the two most beautiful campuses I've been on for setting are IU's in the Fall and Pepperdine in the whenever.

8.

The legitimacy discussion was about the tendency of academics to suggest that their research would help game design. I can state fairly emphatically that this conference does not intend to make any design innovations whatsoever. The purpose is rather to take current designs and apply them to a new use, university research. Designers would have an interest here because it's an opportunity to design for a different purpose; a new revenue stream, for the cynical. At universities, you can be creative AND get paid for it. There are still limits, sure, but it's got to be more rewarding than designing another EQ clone.

The comments to this entry are closed.