The Virtual Air Traffic Simulation Network (VATSIM) is a virtual world that I feel has something to say to the rest of us. I'm having a hard time putting my finger on what exactly, but it is a feeling. A little while ago, the Oakland ARTCC on VATSIM posted a fine (and first official) video...
The strangest component of a VATSIM ARTCC (Air Route Traffic Control Center) might seem to be those who play the air traffic controllers. To be one seems odd in what must already appear to be an odd world experience to most outsiders: I'd much rather fly a plane than instruct others how to land one! Add into the mix the exhaustive training regime controllers undergo (see [fn1]), and there comes a sense of sacrifice or at least commitment.
Yet, on this Saturday night, I casually note that at e-Oakland (e-CA, e-USA), just one hub in the VATSIM universe, there are 4 controllers and 25 pilots online.
In Civicus I asked whether a measure of a good world, virtual or otherwise, is the degree to which one can rely upon the duty-mindedness of strangers. Thus my question. Were you to devise a set of metrics to measure the health of a virtual world, what would they be? High on my list, I suspect, would be the willingness and the commitment of strangers to bring me home.
Lights will guide you home
And ignite your bones
And I will try to fix you.
-ColdPlay
-----------------------------------
/Ed 11/19. The VATSIM Online Flying Survey 2006 is available here. Relevant to a number of details wrt comments below. Including: 99.3% players are male; ~50% have no RW aviation experience; ~25% are private pilots; ~25% other RW aviation involvement. Interestingly, 66% of 4463 respondants said that they have controlled on the network.
The Oakland ARTCC on VATSIM website.
The Virtual Air Traffice Simulation Network
Post-gazette reprint of May 18 Wall Street Journal article By Peter Sanders. See also General Discussion on forums here ("VATSIM Makes Front Page of Wall Street Journal").
-----------------------------------
[fn1] (From the Oakland ARTCC on VATSIM website, emphasis added):
"The most important step in starting your training is to become familiar with the contents of this site... Pay special attention to recent changes by checking the NOTAMs page and be sure to review the SOP and Policy statements from the SOPs/LOAs page... Download the Oakland CTR sector file and any tower other sectors you might be interested in. Familiarize yourself with the airports, navaids, and geography of the ZOA airspace.
You are required to take the ZOA SOP exam and Clearance Delivery / Ground exam. The Training Administrator or an Instructor will arrange to have it emailed to you, and it will test that you have read through the SOPs and policies and are familiar with basic airport operations. The procedure for taking this test is the same as the VATUSA pilot/observer test that you took prior to joining ZOA ARTCC. You may not control unsupervised until you pass this test. When you do pass this test, in accordance with our Facility Certification Policy, you may work any DEL, GND, or TWR position except at KSFO and KOAK.
New controllers should begin to work through the Student 1 (S1) Syllabus on the Controller Training page. Extensive practical training information is at your fingertips in this section of the web site.
Student S-1 & S-3s are primarily trained by the Mentor Team. The Deputy ATM runs the mentor program and can assist you in locating mentors for your initial training. Posting in the discussion forum is the best place to introduce yourself and alert the mentors to your joining the ARTCC."
Including (from here):
FAA Order 7110.65 - ATC Procedures
FAA Federal Aviation Regulations - Part 91
I’m sure it’s just me, but the whole VATSIM phenomenon strikes me as a beautiful example of fetishizing. And I do mean beautiful, since I was sent the link to one of their sites a week or so ago I’ve been clicking round the community in wonder.
The whole Pilot / ATC relationship comes over as so D/s. You just have to watch that video to see how the planes' iconicly phallic image are given primacy. The seeming subservience of ATC’s and the masochistic level of training regime only thinly veils the fact the pilot’s lives (virtual ones in this case) are in their hands. The 'control' in ATC seems key. But there is more. Reading the VATSIM main site, and others, some of the events have a joyful emphasis on load, scale, capacity – very much a way to perform and show just how much one can handle.
This makes me wonder if communities such as this are strong but brittle.
In any co-dependent power relationship like this, be it between two individuals or in a wider group, bonds of trust and implicit boundaries and rituals of their setting are key. But such matters are so key to the functioning of the community and the emotional reward that any individual gets out of it, I wonder if traditional MMOs (and yes I know there are ones where this kind of trust is more central and we might argue that end game raiding reacquires very similar dynamics) where there is a broader spectrum of participation in the community are strong in the long run.
That is, is it better to hope for the casual kindness of strangers than rely on a light to guide you home?
Posted by: Ren Reynolds | Nov 19, 2006 at 08:33
Perhaps, instead of casting acts of quiet support into the role of the submissive, we could consider the possibility that a social fabric like the RL one we're enjoying could only exist by resting on the strong shoulders of working folks who don't mind unglamorous work when it involves helping others.
Posted by: Trevor F. Smith | Nov 19, 2006 at 09:33
> role of the submissive... strong shoulders of working folks who don't mind unglamorous work
--------------------------------------
The MMOG vernacular (and design) aguably has a good handle on 'team' in the sense of small teams of players who know how to cooperate and role-play (in the sense of character specialization) to maximize their group's efficiency (wrt usually combat).
Then there are the training/serious game folks who might see this more broadly (albeit with greater specialization) through doctrine and command/control prisms.
Too there are those who look at this from the perspective of how populations of players may form large organizations and 'political' structures ("governance").
The disconnect here, it seems to me, is what I think is suggested by this post. Namely, what seems to be missing are good handles on how to discuss deep world systems in which whose participants engage in roles that are not always balanced.
Now, I'm from the camp that believes that such systems cannot be entirely fashioned using 'extrinsic rewards.' Thus I think there needs to be a component of altruism.
This is area in which I don't think is well discussed.
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 19, 2006 at 13:40
When I watch this video, I think they should have chosen REM's Daysleeper as the soundtrack.
If I had this kind of dedication to a simulation of what others would call "work", then I would want to get into that field for real and actually get paid.
Ok, so they like it. Bless them.
But if you are trying to see any kind of implication for other virtual worlds here...
In this simulation, players select themselves - the entire premise is cooperation with no extra reward. Nonmotivated people simply don't apply.
Extreme specialization breeds dedicated players. Take away gold, items, levels and areas from WoW, and you'll get a much smaller playerbase that plays much more cooperatively. E.g about roleplaying.
Posted by: Thomas | Nov 19, 2006 at 17:41
Thomas>
If I had this kind of dedication to a simulation of what others would call "work", then I would want to get into that field for real and actually get paid.
---------------------------
Somewhere in Nick's Daedalus project is a great thread of discussion of those who are burned out of guild leadership (talk about work, and then there's *work* in an mmorpg). Fact is though, people don't (and aren't looking to necessarily) transfer skills and motivation between a virtual activity and a real one. In the VATSIM case, I note from some of the forums I've read a number of 'em seem to be already involved in aviation (or want to be). However, I still think its a hard argument to make that the *reason* why so many of them have invested the amount of time and effort to build a grass-roots infrastructure and nuture a community such as that one that has evolved is because they are looking for that kind of transfer. I'm pretty sure there are other motivating factors. That is what is interesting.
--------------------------------------------
Thomas>
In this simulation, players select themselves - the entire premise is cooperation with no extra reward. Nonmotivated people simply don't apply.
--------------------------------------------
Yes. But this is true for just above everything virtual and real. Why does it work?
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 19, 2006 at 18:27
Trevor- it's one thing to say "OK a lot of people are content with being the quiet labour backbone of a society", it's something else again to say that they *actively choose to spend their leisure time* doing so. I think Ren's observation is fairly acute, but the vocabulary of "D/s" is laden with context and inference that maybe detracts from the actual study of the power relationships in play.
I expect there is an element of wish fulfilment, or wanting to excel or at least demonstrate competence in an activity of interest, but we are still back to the point that nobody is doing this for a job. They are choosing to chain themselves to a desk in effect, and serve the pilots doing the "fun" stuff of flying planes, indeed they have to prove themselves worthy of serving by taking tests. I think it does appeal to a particular kind of tidy/authoritarian mind "The world needs order", and that is also the mindset of most lifestylers on the sub side that I've talked to in my virtual travels. That need for order, and to volunteer to be an agent and subject to that order. The fact that stacking planes (even virtual ones) is the kind of activity that *requires* such rigorous control for "safety" reasons helps a lot in terms of rationalising that. And well, it's not half as icky as all the buckles and leather.
In reference to the original post, I think these people go beyond the "kindness of strangers"- those people who will help someone through a tough part of a world map, or give them a few starter items or advice, help, etc. Instead, these are people who signed up to do nothing but service the needs of others, and in doing so, satisfy something within themselves. That's different to casual or instinctive generosity, in fact it may even be a deal more selfish in its root.
I can't imagine someone hasn't written a paper on this kind of thing.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Nov 20, 2006 at 05:39
I've been doing a bit more reading. It seems that a fair number of people involved in the community are interested in flying and / or ATC on a hobby and / or professional basis - where exams etc really are required. Now, many argue that the simple distinction between leisure and work is a false one, this seems to be a case that gives life to that false dichotomy.
Ace > the vocabulary of "D/s" is laden with context and inference that maybe detracts from the actual study of the power relationships in play.
Yes that is an issue, D/s language does mask the co-dependency / symbiotic nature of the power-relations, but I think it does at least nod towards what is going on more than a narrative of simple selfless sacrifice.
Posted by: Ren Reynolds | Nov 20, 2006 at 07:44
It was as much the often overtly sexual imagery I was trying to skirt round (your flying phalluses for one :D ) but point taken.
How do you only get a fair few people in a virtual ATC game being interested in ATC/flying as a hobby OR career? Surely they all are? I mean are there people sweating to be online ATCs who have no interest in flying but just need that hit to the psyche and found this first?
Is there a place for them in other games etc? Gate guards in WoW? Town tax collectors, scribes? Actually I have seen that in an online roleplay community, but I'm not mentioning that until someone else does :)
WTB silver gifted abbacus of enhanced accounting.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Nov 20, 2006 at 11:10
Chris Kohler (Wired Blogs) picked up this story. His twist on this is:
Far be it from me to poo-poo the harmless entertainments of others, but I must ask: why not sleek spaceships? Why not multi-headed, pitch-belching dragons? Why Oakland, California, and not Titan, Saturn?
The answer is self-evident, really: they just want to fly planes. But the very banality of it is intensely curious to me.
My counter question is, frankly, why NOT Oakland, why not Iceland, Gibraltar... Don't misunderstand me, I've seen a lifetime of fantasy game worlds. But I found myself the other night fiddling with the autopilot in a sim-Beechcraft, grr, another challenge of sorts. How different was it from outfitting a ship in Eve Online? etc. Sure, the resolution of that challenge would not be PvP, but a flight well done. The larger question is the one that I think is worth asking: can some of what passes as fantasy today be reskinned?
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 23, 2006 at 18:34
I think it's about a form of immersion, feeling the joy of the flow, of unconscious competence, when we engage in a hobby we enjoy. Frankly, why not Oakland, or why not Virtual Train World for the train crowd?
BTW, anyone done any mashup with google maps (and kin) for the train crowd?
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Nov 23, 2006 at 18:48
Nate>
can some of what passes as fantasy today be reskinned?
---------------
Ok, I won't pull the punch this time. If such is *possible* should that be the route taken?
Put it another way, would we all be better off, all things being equal, with an MMOG that communicated more of something usable (real knowledge, real intuition) about how the real world worked than one that communicated less? In other words given two equally engaging universes, except in one participants learned *more* relevant to the real world than the other, would there be any doubt about the road better taken?
Yes, there is a really big *If* in there - to date this aren't good examples. .
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 23, 2006 at 18:50
Ren> D/s language does mask the co-dependency / symbiotic nature of the power-relations, but I think it does at least nod towards what is going on more than a narrative of simple selfless sacrifice.
So, your claims seem to be that:
1) The existence of widespread charity (despite political, economic, and evolutionary pressures against it) can be expressed as a "narrative of simple selfless sacrifice".
2) Framing the relationships of VATSIM in terms from a minor sexual culture is more explicative than comparing them to relationships in the widespread, rl culture of giving.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Trevor F. Smith | Nov 24, 2006 at 19:39
Nate> In other words given two equally engaging universes, except in one participants learned *more* relevant to the real world than the other, would there be any doubt about the road better taken?
But this presupposes, in terms of its measurement criteria ("more relevant"), a static world. Sure, we could someday design virtual worlds as true to life as VATSIM on a much wider (though not total) scale, but such models must emphasize the known over the unknown. Would mastering a world with high verisimilitude prepare us better for what comes next? I don't think so.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Nov 25, 2006 at 01:03
Thomas>
Would mastering a world with high verisimilitude prepare us better for what comes next? I don't think so.
----------------------------------
'(F)or what comes next' in the sense of the RW or virtual worlds? If it is the RW, I would be hard pressed to see how a grasp of real physics and mechanics would be less useful than a mastery of pseudo-physics, when it comes to some future human exploration of Titan, for example.
Even if one might believe that physics on Titan is really unknown or so different from the one on Earth, I would still argue it is *more likely* to share elements of the one we know over the one we might imagine.
A problem with trying to imagine a complete new physics model for a simulation is that to some level of detail sooner than the verisimilude model it would break down. The RW model has the advantage of generations of development behind it- hard for a game dev to replicate on a budget.
I think one of the advantages of 'fantasy worlds' has been one can create engaging short-cuts (fiction) for RW systems. So one might imagine the economics framework of WoW to be more accessible to someone than SIM-MULTIPLAYER-ECON. However, as I did say given two equally engaging options, why would SIM-MULTIPLAYER-ECON be less instructive than WoW? A faucet/drain economy is an interesting artifact of virtual world design that may have a number of transfer lessons to the real world, but why would those transfer lessons be greater than those of a SIM-MULTIPLAYER-ECON, say?
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 25, 2006 at 03:05
Nate>I would be hard pressed to see how a grasp of real physics and mechanics would be less useful than a mastery of pseudo-physics, when it comes to some future human exploration of Titan, for example.
Sure, if competence to act according to existing physics is all that matters. Of course, we learn to act competently according to much more than that, including cultivating a readiness to adapt to changing circumstances (even if the *physics* don't change), so I don't really think you're answering my comment. Look, I'm not saying that a less-"realistic" virtual world is necessarily "better", I'm just saying that the question presumes an ability to measure relevance that I think is, given the changing and complex nature of the world, a pipe dream.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Nov 25, 2006 at 09:55
Thomas>
Look, I'm not saying that a less-"realistic" virtual world is necessarily "better", I'm just saying that the question presumes an ability to measure relevance that I think is, given the changing and complex nature of the world, a pipe dream.
--------------------------------------------
I think this is a fair point if one set out as their objective to build to build an MMOG that was going to transfer skills/motivation to its players (and to the greater RW) to encourage a specific RW objective (go to Titan, defuse Middle Eastern tensions).
But why should this impact the following decision process:
I have two MMOGs. I can only launch one. From focus testing I know they are equally engaging to my target demographic, etc. MMOG A incorporates a detailed "physics-accurate" movement/crash/shoot-em model. MMOG B doesn't.
In all other aspects that I care about they are equal. Wouldn't / shouldn't I release MMOG A over B under the presumption that A and whatever physics transfer there were would benefit players more?
I understand that one cannot absolutely say MMOG A > B (wrt "goodness") for the measurement reasons you mention. But statistically, whenever one were faced with doing A (vs. B) - and chooses A, the likelihood of betterment to us all would be enhanced?
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 25, 2006 at 10:45
Sure, I suppose, but the way you framed it previously suggested some kind of necessary trade-off. But I'm not sure that some kind of trade-off isn't inevitable, not the least of which might be a basic trade-off in quality of the gameplay. I realize that you're trying to assume that the games are equally engaging, but I just don't know if that's possible.
It may be that compelling games not only calibrate many contingencies, but also effectively *reduce* our ability to act with reference to them, narrowing the range of our possible actions whether through rules, the interface, or social conventions. (The standard computer interface with which we're all familiar is just one obvious example.) This is what makes a game feel somewhat bounded from the rest of our experience, as something that we can hope to "master" in a way we can never hope to master life.
What you bump up against here is a conception of how the game (through its physics) models the "world" and the player's capacity to interact with that world in a way that is engaging. It's really just a hunch (since I'm not a game designer), but I wonder if these issues can be separated.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Nov 25, 2006 at 15:07
Thomas>
What you bump up against here is a conception of how the game (through its physics) models the "world" and the player's capacity to interact with that world in a way that is engaging.
-------------------------------------------
I think the problem with realism is that it hasn't been easy to map it into the established game genres/design patterns. So for example, racing games bias gravity to make the racers harder to roll (rolling your car gets in the way of a good race ;), ballistics are less relevant in a shooter (everyone uses automatic weapons at close range - who really cares ;;), etc.
So yes, in the end to work with ballistics or more flippable cars, or agricultural policy, one will end up with a different game than if one focused on recipes that didn't require it (and were likely handicapped if it tried it).
I just see this as a limitation of game design (and acceptance in the mass market). Raph a while back posted ideas on a similar theme: MMOG as The Healing Game.
Why not?
Posted by: nate combs | Nov 26, 2006 at 00:00