Ted's Synthetic Worlds Initiative at Indiana University convened the second Ludium Conference this past weekend in Bloomington. Attendees were charged with hammering out a well-considered platform to guide virtual world policy. We were successful, and the Declaration of Virtual World Policy [Edit: along with its wiki] has been posted by the conference's designers, Studio Cypher. Here it is for your perusal and comment (along with more details):
A Declaration of Virtual World Policy
made by
representatives of law, industry, and academia, assembled in full and
free convention as the first Synthetic Worlds Congress.
Whereas virtual worlds are places with untapped potential, providing new and positive experiences and effects, we resolve that:
-A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed
-A players’ bill of rights should be drafted and should include the right of free speech and the rights to assemble and organize.[Edit: FN1]
-A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users
-Virtual world designers should have freedom of expression
-Virtual worlds should include plain-language End-User
License Agreements (EULA) to enable all individuals to understand their
rights
-There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications
-Access is critical to virtual worlds, so net neutrality must be maintained
-Game developers shall not be liable for the actions taken by players
-Fair use may apply in virtual worlds that enable amateur creation of original works
-The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy
[Edit: FN1 Modified to reflect correct wording voted on at Ludium 2.]
SWI plans to send this platform to all major candidates for the presidency and for all contested congressional seats in the coming 2008 election. I'm sure these statements will prompt a lot of discussion and debate (I hope so), but I thought I would remind everyone that the congress is concluded, and these are SWI's policy recommendations, at least until the next Ludium ;-). I'm sure that registration for that one will be open, as it was for this one.
The Ludia are conferences structured as games, and this one was modeled
on a political convention, the first Synthetic Worlds Congress. Studio Cypher deserves a lot of credit for creating a game that generated incentives to both compete and collaborate. All attendees began in districts (of three delegates), and started by forging platform planks, combining them regionally (3 districts to a region, 3 regions total) by the end of the first day. On the second day, all voted in multiple straw polls on 30 potential planks, with merging of planks and refinement of language prompted by the game design, the end goal being a list of 10 planks, as determined by a final vote. The list above is the result. In addition, the conference elected me as its Speaker, which basically puts me forward to direct the traffic of media and policy-maker inquiries about the declaration to the appropriate legal, industry, and academic experts. In the process of determining the speaker as well there was a greater interest amongst the nominees (Corey Bridges of Multiverse, Joshua Fairfield of Indiana University Law School and TN, and myself) in focusing on the platform, and the breadth of expertise in the room that would be able to speak to its specific planks, then on the race for the position.
We all know that well-designed games are good at generating incentives for their players, and in a way I took it as a sign of the success of this one that before the first day was even completed many players were eager to concentrate on the content of the planks rather than press for every advantage that the game mechanics gave them to accumulate "influence points" or the currency, gold coins. It quickly became apparent that the Ludium had sparked useful ideas and discussion about virtual world policy. The feeling that we were succeeding in hammering out a useful set of policy guidelines only grew over the course of day 2.
The Ludium was also the setting for related news from Ren Reynolds, who took the opportunity after final voting was completed to let us know about the Virtual Policy Network he is spearheading, and organization based in the UK that will tackle similar policy matters from a European as well as global perspective. Bravo, Ren!
[Edit: Some Ludium2 reports from attendees have appeared. Christian Renaud of Cisco has a post here, and Mia Consalvo has a post here. Ron Meiners has blogged about it at Virtual Cultures, Garrison LeHearst weighs in here, and Michelle Senderhauf of ARGNet posted during the conference. Richard, of course, blogged about it here, and Peter Jenkins has a post on his blog as well. Any I've missed? Drop a comment below and I'll add the link!]
I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of this clause:
"-There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications "
This seems to be a statement rather than an assertion or recommendations. Is there some text missing here?
Posted by: rikomatic | Jun 26, 2007 at 16:44
I was at the conference, and while I would've liked to have seen the statements have more declarative power (the first one in particular,) there was only one I had a real problem with: a player's bill of rights. The full reasoning is again too long, so it's in the linked blog.
Overall, I enjoyed it, though. Three suggestions:
* If we're going to do 8 a.m. on Friday again, let's have early registration and meet-and-greet on Thursday night.
* I don't like the spy thing. The meta-game of trying to figure out if someone's a spy, particularly if it's because they're pushing a given pet topic of theirs, is kind of distracting from the core mission.
* I'd actually like to see less benefit for collaboration through the merging system and how they divvy points. I think one reason we ended up with less powerful statements is because it was so much easier to merge statements, even if they were pretty far apart, to a very neutral and shallow common ground instead of standing your ground on them - you got the same points either way.
-MH
Posted by: Morgan Hardy | Jun 26, 2007 at 17:49
I did not attend Ludium II, and don't see a link to the full reasoning behind the points above (as Morgan references).
I have to say I'm boggled by some of the items in this Declaration. The first three certainly beg a lot more explanation at least:
- A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed
- A players’ bill of rights should be drafted
- A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users
The remainder of the policy elements are good, if perhaps redundant -- for example, which virtual worlds do not already have EULAs written in plain language? (Writing them plainly doesn't mean people will read them, or that they'll be legally defensible, as Second Life's TOS shows). Similarly, I have to wonder in what ways Fair Use of copyrighted items does not already apply to virtual worlds.Self-governance? By whom, and in what form? Why would commercial virtual world developers not just say, "Ha ha. No."? Are "stakeholders" demanding governance rights going to put up their share of multi-million dollar budgets for the development and operation of virtual worlds?
To what end? What rights are to be enshrined, and on what legal authority?
In the abstract this would be terrific, but in practice it strains the imagination. Yes, you could specify a form of national (or international) ID card, vetted by world governments, but even then, how do you keep a kid from using his older brother's ID? I guess you could include biometric verification (which can still be subverted), but I have to ask: for people who tend to be very skittish about the slightest intrusions on personal privacy, how can you recommend a (necessarily government-sponsored) 'universal age-verification system' as a matter of virtual world policy?
Overall, I'm left wondering what the purpose of this Declaration is, or even if it's meant to be taken seriously by developers, let alone by major political candidates. What changes are expected by those who drafted it as a result of its creation?
The first purpose might be found in the last bullet point ("The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy" -- though which government isn't specified), as funding is on anyone's mind who wants to do more in creating or exploring virtual worlds. But given the sweep of this Declaration and the group's self-enshrinement as the "first Synthetic Worlds Congress" (or is that not really serious, just a bit of the Ludium fiction leaking out into the real world?), I'm at a loss as to the larger purposes being pursued here. What behavior is expected to change as the result of these Declarations, and what larger goals to be achieved?
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 26, 2007 at 18:41
My apologies - the link was my name, heh. sutrosez.blogspot.com
Posted by: Morgan Hardy | Jun 26, 2007 at 19:26
lol ! cmon Mike, let them have fun :) Who told you that was for " real ", for " serious " ?! They are just having fun ....of us ?! of themselves ?! or perhaps just fun , just like that ...rofl ! It remainds me of " Suppa Bombastic Fantastic " .
Posted by: Amarilla | Jun 26, 2007 at 20:21
There's no central discussion of the platform since people had a wide range of reasons for supporting the statements.
However, the Ludium 2 wiki is still up, so I encourage those who were there (or who weren't but support a statement) to use it to explain their reasonins. The wiki would also be a good place to ask questions about specific statements.
Posted by: Will Emigh | Jun 27, 2007 at 01:59
Mike Sellers>I have to say I'm boggled by some of the items in this Declaration.
Yes, aren't we all?
Here's what I saw the statements you mentioned to mean. Note this doesn't mean I agree or disagree with them, I'm just explaining what the consensus was.
>Self-governance? By whom, and in what form?
That's left open. Basically, it's saying that there should be some organisation that government can approach that represents virtual worlds' interests. This organisation should be independent. Beyond that is TBD.
>Why would commercial virtual world developers not just say, "Ha ha. No."?
Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.
>To what end? What rights are to be enshrined, and on what legal authority?
What the rights are is to be decided. They could be as short as "the right to leave without having to pay an exit fee". As to what end: clarity.
>Yes, you could specify a form of national (or international) ID card, vetted by world governments, but even then, how do you keep a kid from using his older brother's ID?
The idea wasn't to prevent people from using fake IDs. The idea was to protect virtual world developers from liability if they unwittingly offered adult content to people under age. Society says, "follow these instructions, and we'll let you show boobies". It's then up to society to decide on the nature of the instructions.
>Writing them plainly doesn't mean people will read them, or that they'll be legally defensible, as Second Life's TOS shows
The idea was to have a bullet-point summary of the rules, so people can see NO SELLING STUFF FOR REAL MONEY as being something important. There would still be a legalese version of the EULA (which would be what they "signed").
>What changes are expected by those who drafted it as a result of its creation?
Very little. The best we can hope for is that legislators remember there was some kind of declaration when it comes to making new laws, and they figure it might be worth asking for wider opinion.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 27, 2007 at 04:49
Richard says it all very well, as usual. The creation of policy recommendations is new to most of this crowd, to be sure, but I don't see that as any excuse to evaluate the platform on the wrong terms, and with an incredulous tone to boot. The important thing, to me, is that with the Ludium Ted took some steps toward doing what a lot of folks in this area regularly whine about as desperately needed -- beginning the creation of a consensus voice about distinctive, core issues oncerning virtual worlds that politicians need to at least understand might exist. Will this overwhelm the candidates it gets sent to like a wildfire, changing all of their opinions? Of course not. But it does get a statement out there, however limited, and that is far better than nothing.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 11:34
@rikomatic: To answer your question, the plank about different types of virtual worlds having different policy implications was spiritedly lobbied for by our own Dr. Bartle, so perhaps he would like to elaborate further, but the core idea is that, in developing virtual world policy, one size most definitely will not fit all; there are core differences between the WoWs, the Second Lifes, the Habbo Hotels, etc.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 11:42
I think it sounds like a nice initiative, but I think players would be better off having their interests covered by a consumer-rights organization, informed by game oriented academics/law people if possible. By involving the industry, don't you just risk that they play a double game. Lobbying on one hand, pulling the breaks on this initiative on the other hand? Such an initiative could of course be used to inform consumer-rights organizations, but having the game makers speak on behalf of their players is somewhat problematic...
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jun 27, 2007 at 11:48
@Ola: Ideally, as I understood the consensus in the room, industry wouldn't be put in a position to speak for players, as they would be represented in such a body as well, perhaps by any of the number of prominent scholars who are also participants in virtual worlds, or by prominent participants identified by some other means.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 12:00
Thomas, I understand. And I am sure such scholars would do their best, but they also have their own academic interests that isn't aligned with players (e.g. access to data about player behaviour). I think the releationship between game-makers and game-players is better suited seen through the frames of Marx than Hegel... Still, just having such discussions is a good thing by itself.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jun 27, 2007 at 12:42
Agreed (although this "access to data" thing is a bit overgeneralized and overstated, in my opinion, but that's another topic). I nominate Julian and Ren to represent the players! ;-)
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 13:28
Ok, but there are lots of issues, don't get me started... (funding research: results/programs can both be used both for/against players (not neutral), ethical considerations: one day "neutral" interviewer -- next day politician informed by such intformation claiming to represent the respondent etc etc).
There is something to be learned from Free Software Foundation I think, programmers are the politicians, academics support them. Maybe.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jun 27, 2007 at 13:40
Thomas: The creation of policy recommendations is new to most of this crowd, to be sure, but I don't see that as any excuse to evaluate the platform on the wrong terms, and with an incredulous tone to boot.
In my post above, I asked for greater explanation of the brief points presented in the Declaration, as well as for more about its purpose. My tone is a bit incredulous, but given the brevity and ambiguity of these statements -- a lack of available information, not wrong information -- combined with the pomp and formality of being a "Declaration of Virtual World Policy" by the "first Synthetic Worlds Congress" (unless as I said before, quite seriously, that pomp was not meant to be taken seriously, as being just a part of the Ludium-game), I don't think I'm alone in scratching my head on this.
I applaud Ted's efforts in leading the Ludium, though I would not place myself among one of those worrying excessively about what politicians think about virtual worlds. But, as I've said, those of us who did not attend this conference are left without any information about the meaning of the points announced above, the intent of this Declaration or what, if anything, the group who created this hope to have happen as a result. If this is much ado about nothing -- just a conference in the form of a mock-political game -- then what's the value in the output of the exercise itself? If OTOH this Declaration is meant to be taken seriously by politicians or others not conversant with virtual worlds, then it shouldn't be a surprise when those falling under its umbrella express concern at what appear to be ill-considered policy directives.
Then there's the question of industry involvement, which to my (perhaps jaundiced, capitalist, materialist) eye appears to be pretty significantly lacking here. I don't know for sure who attended Ludium II, but from the wiki page I could find that lists attendees, it looks like there were a few people representing the commercial side of virtual worlds -- Yahoo, Cisco, content developers for Second Life, and Multiverse. In other words some good folks, but not a current MMO or virtual world developer among them.
This is probably indicative (once again) of the unfortunate gap between commercial developers and academia (or academia-sponsored gatherings), but it also makes for a pretty significant gap for any group setting up policy statements that could, presumably, affect most directly the people who bring these worlds into being. I would hope that in the future any gathering calling itself a Congress covering virtual worlds might consider the need for appropriate representation from those actually creating these worlds.
Or like I said, maybe this is really all much ado about nothing.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 27, 2007 at 14:26
I'll say again: Registration was open -- there was no invite list -- so your chiding is again misplaced. My understanding is that Ted wanted this to be an open forum for those interested in the issue. If you're not interested in the political side of things, as you note here, then I am triply surprised by your comments and their tone.
In particular, to complain about the lack of representation of a *particular* industry point of view at an open event such as this one (and then disparaging its products, whatever their inevitable limitations) is simply perplexing. By your own count (in our offlist correspondence) there were 9 people of the 32 attendees that you could identify with industry, in one form or another. But yet you continue to find objections. First it was, "Where's industry?" Then it was, "Where's the commercial MMO industry?" (in an email to me). Now it's, "Where's the *current* commercial MMO industry representation?" Give me a break.
On top of that, you claim again not to understand what the aim of this declaration could be -- that has been answered for you, so I am again at a loss. I don't think these statements are perfect, but they are a place to start. The grousing is unwelcome -- participation going forward quite the opposite.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 14:44
Richard Bartle wrote:
Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.
I think the first part could be true in some countries (government-imposed trade body) but the latter part is speculative.
For instance, there are those who feel the film industry is worse off under the MPAA than they would have been under government regulation, since government regulation has to pass Supreme Court muster whereas the MPAA is a completely opaque organization that is accountable to no one and makes some incredibly inconsistent decisions.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jun 27, 2007 at 15:17
Thomas Malaby wrote:
In particular, to complain about the lack of representation of a *particular* industry point of view at an open event such as this one (and then disparaging its products, whatever their inevitable limitations) is simply perplexing.
I find this a little confusing. Mike's not complaining about a particular industry viewpoint that's missing.. Mike's pointing out that the viewpoints (as it's not as if all current MMO developers have similar viewpoints) represented are from a very very small part of the market. The Blizzards, Sulakes, NCSofts, Jagexs, MTVs, and so on (the commercial VW developers) make up 98% of the industry in any way I can think of to measure them. That last 2% (the exact numbers are obviously not the point) is from RMT, and nobody from that viewpoint was there either. Perhaps 1.999%, since everything else (hobbyists, academics etc) represent a rounding error.
I'm not trying to place myself on a pedestal either. My company represents only little more than a rounding error. Whether I'm there or not is pretty irrelevant from a market representation viewpoint, but a discussion that misses out on the viewpoints of the people actually making the VWs that absolutely define the market is not really capable of representing virtual worlds in general.
That's not to bag on the conference either. It sounded fun. Without the people who actually can represent the interests of the industry there though, I'm not sure how far it's possible to get.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jun 27, 2007 at 15:37
Well said, Matt. I hope more commercial MMO folks attend any similar events in the future; I just don't think the fact that they didn't choose to attend this one in substantial numbers is a solid reason to criticize the conference any more than to criticize them.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 15:49
In the mainstream game industry the ESRB rates content in boxed retail titles (for a significant fee, paid by publishers themselves) to help avoid government regulation and to improve the pre-use information available to consumers (for example, you don't have to personally play GTA games to see what kind of experience/content is involved). Where is the equivalent self-regulating effort for virtual worlds and online interactive entertainment?
The ESRB has contributed to successful self-regulation in the boxed retail game industry, but the system's usefulness has deteriorated since widespread interactive entertainment on the web has evolved. They haven't updated the ESRB system to address current technologies, consumer behavior, or online distribution channels.
ESRB can't hold up the veneer of self-regulation in the games industry if it doesn't even affect the interactive media that parents and politicians most want regulated (online adult multiplayer games that kids can access with little more than a white lie and a free email account... such as the free unverified accounts on Second Life's adult grid). Most games online (including the huge volume of flash and hobbyist games online, all of the games inside virtual world platforms like SL, and every hardcore sex game on the market) are unrated and unregulated. The same thing is happening with music and movies as more content producers are publishing online in formats (with budgets) that don't fit with the old systems of self-regulation in those industries either.
Some of the above declarations from this conference don't seem to consider the role of a virtual world/online games version of the ESRB, which is what I think is sorely needed. Is that an intentional oversight?
Ideally, a free open content rating system could develop; like ICRA and others available for web sites to tag and rate their web content. Most publishers of adult-oriented content *are* responsible and very concerned with turning away minors and sensitive adults to avoid PR and legal problems. In SL, makers of "offensive" content have only one protection (the Mature land thing... which doesn't really cut it when you are showing content that could shock the white off paint). A self-labeling system would definitely be useful for professional and amature content creators but the people running virtual worlds are not savvy to this need yet. To be most effective, the system would need to be independent of any one virtual world and consistent between all of them. Even if SL content moves to private servers (protecting Linen Lab), content creators are screwed if they have no effective means of self-labeling content and creating an environment where consumers are informed enough to be held accountable for the content they purchase/experience. I really hope that future conferences will address content labeling as a practical tool that benefits industry and players.
And a more general point about the above recommendations as a whole: I'm unclear on how efforts at self-regulation would be incentivized for the people implementing and operating virtual worlds.
With the ESRB, the enforcing arm is actually the retail distribution chain which refuses to stock unrated (or AO) games (in many cases). Publishers pay for the self-regulation service in part to help give the industry a defensible position but mostly they just have to participate or they lose a ton of retail channels (Wal-Mart etc.). What incentive will there be for virtual world providers of all sizes to participate with self-regulation efforts?
What would be a natural consequence of non-participation be? If a lot of virtual worlds don't participate, doesn't that negate the positive effect of the effort above (and leave people vulnerable to government regulation if the voluntary efforts are just a spotty academic exercises that none of the commercial or hobbyist worlds are implementing)? Aren't consumers at greater risk if they are misled into thinking they have a universal "Bill of Rights" but really they are subject to the specific whims of virtual world operators? It seems that worlds would need a label of some sort to show players that the bill of rights applied in a given world, and then you are back to needing an organized legal entity overseeing the trademark and use of that label. ;p
Posted by: kellyrued | Jun 27, 2007 at 20:51
Matt said: That's not to bag on the conference either. It sounded fun. Without the people who actually can represent the interests of the industry there though, I'm not sure how far it's possible to get.
Maybe that's along the lines of what I should have said: "Sounds like a fun gathering with good people. I bet with virtual world developers in attendance the results would be more balanced and go farther."
I still wish the Ludium II attendees had put together some kind of explanatory statement with their one-liners. Any chance of that happening or should we just move on?
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 27, 2007 at 22:52
Richard Bartle said: What the rights are is to be decided. They could be as short as "the right to leave without having to pay an exit fee". As to what end: clarity.
That would be a rather impoverished vision of what a Bill of Rights should be. I recall that the actual platform statement (Sysland #9)agreed on at the Convention contained some examples of what the B of R might involve, e.g. free speech, right to assemble and to organize, but these seemed to disappear when the final "Declaration" document was edited on the wiki. I know there are concerns about FOS rights not being suitable for certain role-playing or "magic circle" environments, but I thought that was covered by the different worlds/different policy implications resolution.
Posted by: Peter S. Jenkins | Jun 27, 2007 at 23:15
@Mike: The two days was barely enough time to agree and vote on the one liners, so no official accompanying paragraphs were written -- the suggestion was made, but we simply ran out of time. As Will helpfully pointed out, however, the wiki is still up; I think it would be great if those who were there would use it to elaborate on the planks they helped craft or feel strongly about supporting (Peter's comment about the bill of rights' original wording is a perfect example -- it'd be nice to see that language back in, at least in the extended material).
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 27, 2007 at 23:34
@Thomas - Excellent idea! Maybe we could do a virtual world version of the Federalist Papers.
Posted by: Peter S. Jenkins | Jun 28, 2007 at 00:00
Me>Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.
Matt Mihaly>I think the first part could be true in some countries (government-imposed trade body) but the latter part is speculative.
That's my bad wording. I meant: they might (get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them). I didn't mean: they might get (a government-imposed trade body instead) that would be (far, far worse for them).
In other words, I wasn't saying that merely getting a government-imposed body would by definition be worse for them; rather, I was saying that there was a possibility that any government-imposed body would be worse for them.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 28, 2007 at 03:24
Mike Sellers>those of us who did not attend this conference are left without any information about the meaning of the points announced above, the intent of this Declaration or what, if anything, the group who created this hope to have happen as a result.
Yes, I did suggest at the end that we needed a paragraph or so explaining what each of the statements meant, so that even if the politicians didn't read it their researchers might. This may come later.
I should mention that the actual declarations as finished at the end of the Ludium were a hotch-potch of different tenses and voices, and that Thomas has done a fine job of converting them all into something that makes coherent sense.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 28, 2007 at 03:27
Peter S. Jenkins>That would be a rather impoverished vision of what a Bill of Rights should be.
It would indeed (although there's no necessity that a bill of rights has to be of a certain length). I was only giving an example, not actually proposing a bill of rights.
>I recall that the actual platform statement (Sysland #9)agreed on at the Convention contained some examples of what the B of R might involve, e.g. free speech, right to assemble and to organize, but these seemed to disappear when the final "Declaration" document was edited on the wiki.
That's right. In addition, many of the other propositions that didn't make it to the final slate were suggestions as to what these rights might be (I believe the Sysland categorisation project that Randy did on his laptop identified 6-8 of them).
>I know there are concerns about FOS rights not being suitable for certain role-playing or "magic circle" environments, but I thought that was covered by the different worlds/different policy implications resolution.
The problem with voting for individual statements means that there's no way to guarantee consistency among them. Yes, the Freedom of Speech rights would have been covered by the "different worlds need different policies" clause, but we didn't have any way of ensuring that both would get in, nor that the distinction would get priority (indeed, the bill of rights statement got more votes than the different policies one, so appears higher up the list and would therefore seem to have precedence).
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 28, 2007 at 03:37
@Richard: Thank you, but the compliment is misplaced; while I did ask that the phrasing be made more coherent and consistent, it was the fine folks at Studio Cypher who put it into its present form.
@kellyrued: The ESRB was frequently raised as a useful model for the self-governance body, particularly early in the conference. All of your concerns about its implementation are spot-on, in my opinion; much work remains, and the incentive structure to participate is an especially thorny issue.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 09:01
Richard Bartle> That's right. In addition, many of the other propositions that didn't make it to the final slate were suggestions as to what these rights might be (I believe the Sysland categorisation project that Randy did on his laptop identified 6-8 of them).
Just to be clear - the statement agreed on by vote at the convention is the following: "Define players' bill of rights (free speech, right to assemble, to organize)". What appears in the final Declaration document on the wiki is this: "A players’ bill of rights should be drafted." This is more than just a clean-up or stylistic change - it is a substantive one. Where in the rules does it say that substantive changes to the wording of the resolutions can be made after the final votes are tallied? How is this democratic? We all signed a document at the end of the proceedings. Does that document reflect the wording we all voted on, or the bowdlerized version on the wiki? If it is the former, (which I assumed when I signed it),I think a correction to the wiki version of the Declaration would be required; if it is the latter, I would certainly concede the point.
Richard Bartle> (indeed, the bill of rights statement got more votes than the different policies one, so appears higher up the list and would therefore seem to have precedence).
In a list of 10 approved resolutions such as this, there is no presumption that any one has priority over the other. It's not the David Letterman show. We are doing something here that may have profound effects down the road not only in terms of MMORPG's but also in terms of the virtual worlds that we may all be spending most of our time in eventually.
Posted by: Peter S. Jenkins | Jun 28, 2007 at 10:21
@Peter:
We made that change on this draft in an attempt at cleanliness and making sure that all the statements were at least somewhat similar in tone, hoping that specific bill of rights suggestions would appear on the long form to be created later.
The point you make is a good one though, and we might stick those words back in before we send the statements out. The "before cleaned up by SC" statments are still in the wiki under "final results" as well.
@Morgan:
The "spy" stuff worked better from a game designer standpoint than a player standpoint, at least in theory. It's good to have a bit of confederacty between GMs and some players, to stir up discussion or ensure that certain points are discussed. Future versions of Conference (the generico version of the L2 rules) will probably have a different mechanism to enable the above.
@Mike:
The "congress" bit is a bit of showmanship, that's true, but it is not designed to make us look superior to any members of academia / industry / individuals that did not attend L2. It's a bit of an allusion to the virginia declaration of rights, where they used "Congress" in the sense that people of similar interests have gotten together and discussed something important. It's a pretty good start, and hopefully we will have more virtual world / game 'congresses' over time.
However, the possibility of perception that we are using "Congress" in the other sense is a good thing. I'd much rather have a politician think "who do these people think they are?!" and actually remember us than have the expected response of "Academics and lawyers blah blah blah whatever."
Posted by: Nathan Mishler | Jun 28, 2007 at 10:58
Nathan, it's perhaps ironic that your last comment is exactly my concern: that this will be dismissed out of hand, or that anyone who digs into the florid and official-sounding "Declaration of Virtual World Policy made by representatives of law, industry, and academia, assembled in full and free convention as the first Synthetic Worlds Congress" will quickly discover that it is in fact a theatrical wrapper around a bunch of statements that evaporate into, as you say, "Academics and lawyers blah blah blah whatever."
I would be much happier with either an actual Congress -- a deliberative, passionate, considered and balanced gathering of stakeholders (not just those who were off for the summer or didn't have sufficiently pressing commitments that kept them from attending a weekend meeting) debating and carefully crafting statements intended to be taken seriously -- or overt recognition that this is a small beginning based on a single brief gathering of a few people, the output of which cannot purport to represent anyone actually creating virtual worlds or policy related to them.
What we have instead is the inverse of these: a brief gathering of a few people with at best an arms-length relationship to those building virtual worlds giving the appearance that they have slogged through the necessary efforts at representation, debate and consideration to produce weighty (if completely unexplained!) statements self-appointed as being useful as policy.
I'm sure the gathering was fun and that everyone worked hard. And I know that my comments here are going to come off as non-constructive to some. Nevertheless, given how the result has been presented here, and how it is being cast in statements sent to actual policy makers, I would rather this hadn't been done at all. I believe it would be better to hold back any policy statements until they can be made for real. Policy is playing with live ammunition; this is more like treating seriously the outcomes of a LARP. For all their good intentions and hard work, this "Congress" and its "Declaration" do not and cannot represent me -- or, I believe, the majority of stakeholders in virtual worlds.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 28, 2007 at 11:51
An understandable position, Mike, but I submit that without this kind of beginning, even if its self-presentation is perhaps a bit grandiose, then the process you express an interest in as important would never get started at all. I for one am pleased that it leads you to call for this very kind of meeting, but with more representation -- I couldn't agree more. By the same token, if it is so important a thing to do right, is finding two days in late June to attend too much of a burden? I again suggest that the criticism of non-participation from some quarters reflects more upon those who chose not to find time to attend then on the organizers, who sought to avoid direct invitations precisely so as to make it an open event.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 11:57
As a beginning it's fine. But it's not presented as a beginning. As a platform for policy, this doesn't help us and may actually work against us. My advice and wish would be to hold it back until the policy statements are necessary and sufficiently prepared by an actual representative body.
But I see I'm falling into your trap, calling for a more substantive meeting. I'll get you yet, Malaby.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 28, 2007 at 12:11
First off, as an initial event, as a potential beginning to the formation of some sort of collective voice for this, our, constituency, I think the event was quite successful - though, Nathan, at this point I think the question of rewriting the platform statements should indeed fall to the Speaker, if at all - flawed, inconsistent, etc., those were the statements we put our names to...
Or, should a next step be a revisitation of those statements from the wider participation that an online format gives us? What about pulling in some of the other voices that, for whatever reason, weren't able to make the gathering? And in the process, perhaps taking the next exploratory steps of what such a representative body might look like?
I think these are serious questions - especially as this virtual world stuff is all new, so having some sort of representative voice, to accentuate the positive, as it were, seems like a good idea to me.
Posted by: ronmeiners | Jun 28, 2007 at 13:09
I think the Studio Cypher folks did in general a good job of making the language consistent, but I agree that the dropping of the extension of the bill of rights statement might have gone against the grain of our expectations, so can I ask Nathan or someone else there to put that one back with its original ending? I think with that in place we'll be in a good starting position for elaborating on the wiki and looking forward.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 13:23
@Mike: Lol. As long as you get me at such a meeting, I'll be happy. :-)
@Ron: Second on all counts. If the virtue of the Ludium II was the face-to-face deliberations, its downside was the fact that, however open, it depended upon the ability (in expense and time) of interested folks to get there. I'm sure that pursuing this online will bring its own share of advantages (access in particular), but I hope we continue to think of this as the kind of process that may best advance through a mix of settings. Those interested in virtual worlds, perhaps more than any other group, ought to be able to appreciate the variety in affordances and constraints that they provide.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 14:17
Thomas Malaby wrote, is finding two days in late June to attend too much of a burden?
As someone who considered but decided against attending Ludium I and II, let me put this plainly: Yes, flying to Bloomington Indiana in late June is too much of a burden for many game developers. Late June may be prime time for academics, but for anyone with a game to get out by Christmas, it's the beginning of crunch. For anyone preparing to speak at the Austin Game Conference, San Diego Comic Con, Dragon*Con, etc, it's a busy time. And even without an expansion or an upcoming conference, summer can hit virtual world live development teams hard, as the servers are suddenly filled with high school and college students.
Some virtual world developers, particularly those in the continuously revolving door of MMOG live development, can only set aside time (and money) for one conference per year. Do you go to GDC, with its hordes of game developers and talks given by the top minds in the industry? Or AGC, with its focus on MMOGs and the chance to talk to anyone who is anyone in MMOG development? Or the Ludium, with its 30 or so people, an http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=indianapolis+airport+to+107+S.+Indiana+Ave.+Bloomington,+IN+47405-7000&sll=33.714686,-117.757656&sspn=0.008389,0.017016&ie=UTF8&z=9&om=1>hour drive from the airport, and lack of MMOG developers?
If you are truly interested in the opinions and participation of professional developers, you will need to go out of your way to make the Ludium both convenient and relevant to them. This may mean moving the location or changing the date. If that is not possible, then at least solicit insight from game and virtual world developers after the fact, rather than saying "this is what we decided, it's your own fault for not being there."
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Jun 28, 2007 at 14:21
Well, Samantha, let's be clear: It's not what *I* decided, it's what SWI decided; I wasn't involved in organizing this. And let's also be clear that there *were* developers there. Would it have been ideal to have more, and a more broadly representative set to boot? Sure. It's up to SWI (should they pursue this topic in the future) or some other sponsoring organization to take into consideration the scheduling challenges for all interested groups.
I really have to remark, however, that this discussion, thorny and at times contentious, actually leaves me feeling much better about the prospects for this kind of important initiative going forward than when I set about to write the OP. It's great to see that this has drawn folks into a discussion about how to do it better. As a consequence, this move on Ted's part may get more serious, broad, and effective discussions and organization off the ground on this issue, and that's all to the good. My mantra is, "This is the beginning, not the end."
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 14:29
I'm puzzled by the word 'universal' in this one. Does it mean:
Posted by: Susan | Jun 28, 2007 at 16:30
Okay, new wording of #2 is:
A players’ bill of rights should be drafted and should include the right of free speech and the rights to assemble and organize.
Sorry to all about the seemingly arbitrary change. I should point out that we didn't wake up two days after the conference thinking "Hey, we can totally write these better than the Ludium 2 attendees." Mr. Speaker asked us to try to give them all a consistant tone so it would seem less a hodge-podge. That's all we were trying to do, we didn't want to change the substance of the statements.
The wiki links for the statements themselves are pretty empty. Anyone that wants to start writing the "explanation" paragraphs is more than welcome to throw something up there.
Posted by: Nathan Mishler | Jun 28, 2007 at 22:16
Thanks, Nathan!
@Susan: I took from the discussion at the Ludium that "universal" meant "for all virtual worlds" (or at least, available for all that might choose to opt in). Perhaps someone of a more technical bent might care to weigh in with more details.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jun 28, 2007 at 22:34
@ Nathan : sure, me too, i had a terrorist pointing a gun at me : " Amarilla, if you don't post your opinions at TN - or at wiki - right now , and i mean NOW , you gonna regret it; well, you gonna regret it anyway...."
Posted by: Amarilla | Jun 29, 2007 at 03:03
Peter S. Jenkins>Just to be clear - the statement agreed on by vote at the convention is the following: "Define players' bill of rights (free speech, right to assemble, to organize)".
When I voted, I was under the impression that this had been amended so as to remove any specific examples of what those "rights" may be. The particular ones mentioned, for example, would make an "Escape from Colditz" kind of game unviable, no matter how much people wanted to play it. Come to that, they'd render Ludium II itself unviable because I had to pay one gold coin to address the delegates, I couldn't just get on the microphone and do it.
>This is more than just a clean-up or stylistic change - it is a substantive one.
It's what I thought I was voting for.
>Where in the rules does it say that substantive changes to the wording of the resolutions can be made after the final votes are tallied?
You're right, it doesn't. One (perhaps both) of us has been given a false impression somewhere.
>In a list of 10 approved resolutions such as this, there is no presumption that any one has priority over the other.
When people find out how the list was obtained, we'll get such a presumption whether we want one or not. All of them have priority over the 11th-placed resolution, so the first one "should" have priority over the second.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 01, 2007 at 08:43
Questions, answers to which might help rationally evaluate the statements included in this "Declaration"
1. What is the purpose of this effort - what specific need does it aim to fulfill, why is it necessary to have such a formal declaration in order to address that need, and what is to be the measure of its success or failure to address that need?
2. Who is the audience - both the intended recipients of the message underlying this effort, as well as the people/institutions meant to abide by its actual constraints?
3. Who were the authors, and what qualifies them/authorizes them to create such a document for whoever the intended target of #2 is? Why did they judge themselves to be the proper and sufficient group to make such declarations about the intended audience/constituents?
4. What values are deliberately embedded in the statements - and why those? What unconscious values may be unintentionally embedded in the statements, and what does that say about the authors/the need/the intended audience? And what critical value-principles that underly sustainable free and civil societies in the "real world" are absent here, and why?
Posted by: galiel | Jul 01, 2007 at 18:51
Just to clarify #1, so the answer isn't simply restated "to guide virtual world policy" - by whom, for whom, in whose interest, to what end?
Posted by: galiel | Jul 01, 2007 at 18:53
I've asked the same questions, Galiel. It's only been a few days, but their wiki hasn't been updated, and no answers have been posted here. I hope one or the other will happen soon.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 01, 2007 at 23:22
@Galiel: I'll try to answer the questions as best I can. As to whether the wiki takes off, or things get pursued via another route, only time will tell.
#1 - The specific need is to begin to develop a coherent voice to speak to policymakers (primarily in the United States government, but of course there are many in many places that can have an effect on virtual worlds). This meeting was made up of people from law, academia, and industry. The general idea (and it's not an unfamiliar one for anyone who has read this blog with some regularity, as well as other sources, of course) is that unless some of the thinking through of policy issues surrounding virtual worlds is done by those who know something about them, there is a very great risk that it will be done by those who know little or nothing about them. To what end? To form sensible policy, that, in short, doesn't stifle the potential of virtual worlds through the blunders of which new technologies too often run afoul.
As I have said above, I was not in charge of organizing the event, so you might want to direct the question as to the form of the declaration to Ted and SWI. My best guess would be -- again as I've said above -- that a move such as this is more likely to provoke action than a less grandiose one.
There are no precise measures in place to gauge success, at least none that I know of. I personally don't in any way think that a definite means to measure success is needed before action can be taken. If such were the case, little would ever get done in any human affairs (at least, little worthwhile), but I digress.
#2 - The audience was debated at the Ludium, and to me it seemed that the attendees, roughly speaking, could be said to fall into two groups on this issue: those that favored addressing these efforts to United States policymakers, and those that favored taking a more global approach from the outset. In any case, it is evident that Ted and SWI plan to pursue the former more than the latter in their sending of this platform to U.S. Congressional and Presidential candidates.
#3 - This one's easy. Nothing "qualifies" or "authorizes" them as a body (although their individual expertise in some aspect of virtual worlds was for many unquestionable). If we wait for authorization before doing anything public, I would submit that nothing would get done. :-) I'm a bit bemused (or amused -- I can't decide) at the reactions to this that seem to amount to a "How dare you?", or, at least, "Who do you think you are?" As I've said, it was an open event, and of course anyone is free to make such an event, produce such a declaration, and then mail them to political candidates. Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation. I quite agree. The sensible next step is to take it further, broaden access, get (at least somewhat organized), etc. Chris Sherman was an attendee at the Ludium, and I have hopes that, through his efforts to bring some coherence tot he virtual world community (at the Virtual Worlds Conference, for example), we might see some of this get off the ground.
#4 - If I could answer these questions, I would be able to do all my ethnographic research from my armchair. ;-) It is, as I have said, a place to start.
@Mike: You keep coming back, but I know it's just because you want to "get me" ;-). Please don't pretend that I (or Richard) haven't answered any of your questions, however. Of course there are open questions -- if there weren't, there wouldn't be anything to do. ;-D
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 01, 2007 at 23:56
Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation.
Well, yes, because policy-makers might think that statements from a group of academics are neutral.
I think your list goes beyond ethics of virtual world operation which makes it more a matter of moral intervention than merely mild regulation.
That's ok, but you guys would look better to the cricital reader if you made a point out of it.
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jul 02, 2007 at 03:26
galiel>What values are deliberately embedded in the statements - and why those? What unconscious values may be unintentionally embedded in the statements, and what does that say about the authors/the need/the intended audience?
You'd have to ask individuals. Those statements are the result of a process of:
1) Members of a group of 3 propose ideas, to get a platform of 10 ideas in total. Ideas that didn't have the approval of at least 2 of the 3 people wouldn't get through unless the group was short of ideas.
2) Three groups of 3 debated which ideas to put forward as the group of 9's platform. Some sub-groups had similar ideas, which they merged together into a single idea. The practice by which statements made it to the final 10 is much as in 1) - discussion, votes if necessary, general consensus.
3) A preliminary round of horse-trading between the three groups of 9 to combine their statements into single ones acceptable to all. There was a lot of this, and ideas were often watered-down in the process.
4) The elected leader of each group of 9 got to add a new statement of their own. One group did this, the other two basically took on existing statements by each other's group.
5) A final round of voting to determine the 10 statements. There was some confusion here, as at least one last-minute combination didn't get put on the ballot sheet as it should have been, so that when we signed the piece of paper with the declarations on at the end it was being stuck over the original wording in an old-fashioned cut-and-paste fashion. Also, there were two statements about research that should really have been merged but weren't, because it was so close to the voting deadline that there wasn't time to negotiate. We would have lost at least one good statement because of doubling-up like that, except that in the end there was a tie for 10th place on the list so one of the two research statements was taken out and used as a preamble.
So, knowing this, you'll see how difficult it is for anyone to answer the question of what values were deliberately embedded in the statements.
>And what critical value-principles that underly sustainable free and civil societies in the "real world" are absent here, and why?
The ones that weren't in the statements aren't there because, presumably, they either weren't thought of or didn't have as much support as some of the other values.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 02, 2007 at 03:27
Thomas: Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation. I quite agree. The sensible next step is to take it further, broaden access, get (at least somewhat organized), etc.
The primary issue that I have is the difference between the formality with which this group made statements of policy, implying some degree of officiality (not just anyone can make policy statements), and the follow-on statements found nowhere in the original set that "this is just a beginning"; "it's not official," etc.
In other words, if you want to get a small group of people together by open invitation, discuss and come up with a list of statements that you think people should consider, that's one thing. When you take those same statements, formally title them as A Declaration of Virtual World Policy, and assert that they have been made by representatives who further are assembled in full and free convention, well, you've gone beyond any humble beginning to something that purports to be quite a bit more.
Thus my questions above about whether this formal opening was meant to be taken seriously or was just part of the Ludium game that came along with the statements: saying "this is just a beginning" from a group with no more sway than any other group implies to me that the formality and official status is not intended. OTOH no one has replied as such, and the statements are, apparently, being sent off to political candidates in the US, so clearly someone in your group takes this pretty seriously.
The lack of actual representation and official status, to say nothing of the lack of explanation and self-contradictory nature of the statements themselves leads me to believe that this Declaration will not be taken seriously by anyone. Which is okay, except it's pretty clearly not what the SWI intends, and it may actually hamper real statements of policy coming out of actually representative groups (say, through the IGDA as one possibility, perhaps in concert with the SWI) from being taken seriously in the future.
Chris Sherman was an attendee at the Ludium, and I have hopes that, through his efforts to bring some coherence tot he virtual world community (at the Virtual Worlds Conference, for example), we might see some of this get off the ground.
I believe Chris's efforts are specifically focused on covering non-game worlds these days. Creating statements of policy about virtual worlds while ignoring game worlds would be like making policy statements about all cars while looking only at VW Beetles and Pintos.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 02, 2007 at 09:27
Officiality? What's wrong with that, here? There is an institute that sponsored the event: SWI. They have every right to convene such a congress and publicize the results. Your continued discomfort with this does not rest on any valid objection to SWI's right to do so. As I've said before (and you've never addressed), I have a different view about the usefulness of producing such a declaration by a body that convened at an open conference.
So in the first place, you are mistaken about whether this was presumptuous. Any group *can* make these kinds of policy statements (after all, they are not thereby "policy"; that's for the politicians and sundry to make). That this makes you uncomfortable does not bother me in the least, because no "official" status is needed to do what we did (and thank goodness that's still at least a little bit true for political action in general in some countries). You have not addressed this counterargument, so I'm not sure why you keep trying to make it. /shrug
You come across as someone desperate to feel aggrieved about the outcome of a conference which was open for you to attend. Ted and SWI made no secret as to the larger aims of the conference in the multiple posts here and elsewhere about the conference. SWI has every right to do this. Your only possibly valid complaint is that you (or people who share your perspective) weren't there. Funny thing is, I'm making that complaint, too -- I just know who is fairly to blame.
In addition, to continue to complain that the platform statements do not measure up to what, say, a think tank would have produced is to continue to deny the process by which they were produced. Richard described it aptly, and such a deliberative but also democratic process always yields an uneven set, reflecting the diverse perspectives of the attendees. Mutually contradictory? Only if read in something other than the context of what policy recommendations from a heterogenous group are.
I continue to find your hostility toward the effort -- regularly answered, but then set aflame again seemingly only via the burning embers of your feeling somehow affronted -- strange. You assert that it may do more harm than good, but I'm not in any way convinced by your hand waving to that effect. Nothing stops a group from doing what SWI did, even with the presumptions of legitimacy -- when you think about it, almost any intiative worth pursuing in human affairs begins in that kind of way.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 10:09
SWI has every right to convene whatever group it wants and to say whatever it wants. The question is whether anyone takes the "Declaration" statements -- and by extension, SWI -- seriously. It is in SWI's interest to calibrate the statements and degree of officiality that it assumes proportionate to the degree of virtual world community/industry representation actually in effect (in this case, very little). It seems to me that that calibration is out of proportion; clearly you disagree.
The sum of this is that the "policy" statements arrived at are going to be treated as ungrounded idealistic statements at best, or more likely as passing novelties quickly forgotten, much as with previous discussion in this area (and if you like, I'll put a quarter bet on this, to be revisited in a year). This group and these statements certainly aren't a "coherent voice" representing virtual world stakeholders as you say was intended. They thus will have little effect on anyone.
This comes down to being another academic exercise, interesting in its general direction but little more. It will have no effect on how virtual worlds are created, operated, or regulated. What bothers me is that this is a missed opportunity: call this a working group investigating possible general statements of policy and it might spur further discussion that could lead to actual change; call it the "first Synthetic Worlds Congress" ... "assembled in full and free convention" and it becomes over-reaching and pre-mature, resulting in declarative, normative statements that remain unexplained and unexplored, having no real effect nor spurring further discussion.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 02, 2007 at 11:26
"The grousing is unwelcome -- participation going forward quite the opposite."
Sounds very reasonable, so in the spirit of forward-looking participation...
"I continue to find your hostility toward the effort -- regularly answered, but then set aflame again seemingly only via the burning embers of your feeling somehow affronted -- strange."
I wouldn't characterise Mike's commentary as hostile, mostly because it resonates with me and I don't feel hostile. Just uneasy. There were a few comments by others that also seemed [to my biased eye] uneasy. I just wanted to point out that Mike is not alone.
At any rate, looking to the future, do you think that the next iteration could be augmented with tools that don't require people to be there in person?
Till then, is this thread an appropriate venue to ask people to elaborate on the policy points or should that be confined to the wiki?
Posted by: JuJutsu | Jul 02, 2007 at 11:36
@Mike: Again, I find your tone and assumptions counter-productive. As a result of this event, I have been contacted by a number of people eager to get the ball rolling further in this area, including folks from industry, as well as by interested media. You would like to *assert* that this will have no real effect, but you have no real grounds for arguing that, other than your own peculiar personal affronted-ness. Really, Mike, I think you're showing a lot of disrespect for the hard efforts of some bright people who sacrificed their time to begin this conversation. And, *again*, I have said numerous times that to me this constituted a *step toward* developing a coherent voice to speak to policy makers; I didn't claim that we had already arrived there. I personally don't care if what ultimately comes about has a direct tie to what the Ludium folks did, or if that merely gets some people off their butts and talking to each other (and across the interested groups), as long as things move forward. Because if things don't, we're going to find these worlds regulated by people who do not understand them in the least. I applaud SWI for taking a concrete step, and I think there is a lot to like about the platform, as it identifies and addresses some major issues, such as age verification, the variety of virtual worlds, funding for research within them, and so on. You can be a nay-saying curmudgeon about it all you like, but I challenge you to be constructive instead.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 11:39
@Jujutsu: Well, I may ask the SWI folks to email the participants inviting them to weigh in on the wiki, since many of them may not have come across the invitation to do so in this thread. I'm happy to answer what questions I can here about the thinking behind the planks (as I have), but I of course would love it if those more closely connected with particular issues and planks would weigh in, as Richard has so helpfully.
As for participation, I said above that this kind of effort, in my opinion, would benefit from multiple kinds of settings, including online and face-to-face. It is up to SWI what they would like to do for their next Ludium (for all I know they may want to tackle something other than policy), but an online component of some sort makes sense to me, although I think that imagining that one can do precisely the kind of negotiating and deliberation that we did f2f with an unstructured mix of online and offline participants strikes me as overly optimistic. It would have to be carefully planned and organized (I'm put in mind of the effective use of technology that bridged the online and f2f for NSF review panels on which I've served), and I'm sure the budgetary demands for doing it right would be enormous.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 11:47
I think this "Declaration of Virtual World Policy" does a job of identifying the current critical issues.
If a policy-maker wanted to know which issues government/the legislature ought to be thinking about, this list isn't bad as a starting point. Actually agreeing with its recommedations is another matter.
Galiel says:
These are, indeed, good questions to think about for anyone who is reading the declaration critically. Personally, I might suspect that the group writing it over-represented game developers and under-represented other stakeholders (#8 is an attempt to shift liability away from game companies, without a hint of the regulations that Common Carriers become subject to in exchange for reduced legal liability), and that it has a slant towards U.S. political culture that might not travel well (#4 is explicitly about free speech, #2 hints at it)
Posted by: Susan | Jul 02, 2007 at 11:51
Thomas, as I've said before, I'm sorry you find my tone to be counter-productive; I could say the same about yours, but it really gets us nowhere. Better to speak to the issues themselves.
I would like to point out that though you might not believe it, I truly am one of the supportive, friendly developers. The rest (some of whom I've corresponded with about all this, and have been chided for my interest), trust me, have long since rolled their eyes and moved on.
You may not see it, but from here it's clear that one of the effects of this sort of effort is the widening of the academic-industry gap. This Declaration is to many developers just another overblown academic statement made by those who don't actually build these worlds, but who deign to make normative statements about them. I don't entirely agree with that view, but I certainly understand it. That you appear to be dismissive of this view hardly helps you, SWI, or this "Congress" attain the credibility you'll need to speak in any actual representative manner. Without that credibility, these statements are just another curiosity, as I said before, and will have the same longevity and impact as earlier statements in this same vein.
You may see this differently of course. I'll put my quarter up, and we'll see what impact these statements have had in a year, or whether they've been relegated to the same unused pile of history as earlier ones.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 02, 2007 at 13:32
"unless some of the thinking through of policy issues surrounding virtual worlds is done by those who know something about them, there is a very great risk that it will be done by those who know little or nothing about them."
"Because if things don't, we're going to find these worlds regulated by people who do not understand them in the least. "
You mean, like academics who have never created a virtual world??
This "declaration" is like Film Studies professors and movie critics running the Screen Actors Guild, or writing union policy for the Directors of America. Policy can't be made by people who don't know how the product is made.
Posted by: | Jul 02, 2007 at 13:51
The Declaration clearly overstates its representation, as Thomas has acknowledged above (if only implicitly). And, although it may identify several important issues, the Declaration provides no substantive position with respect to most (if not all) of those issues. Several attendees' comments reflect this.
As an exercise in roleplay, the Declaration is a fun read. As initiative to encourage and (hopefully) nurture further development of the issues, it is a bold step. As a platform for (inter)national policy, it is laughably inadequate.
I know for a fact that the staffs of two legislative representatives have seen the Declaration (and this discussion). To say that those staffs have "dismissed" the Declaration would incorrectly imply that they ever seriously considered it.
Serving on political candidates the Declaration without any substantive policy beyond identification of issues will ensure only that it will be more difficult for subsequent policies to get considered.
Posted by: Jeff Cole | Jul 02, 2007 at 13:59
@?: If you think that only industry has a role to play in developing policy recommendations, then of course the Ludium's makeup disallows it categorically, but it is an error to suggest that it was attended by academics only (from eyeballing the list of attendees [no affiliations, unfortunately] I'm guessing the number of professors was about 12 of the 32).
@Mike: I guess all I can say is that the last thing this area needs is more rhetoric that paints everything as about industry vs. academics. There are lots of stakeholders in this area, from practicing lawyers to virtual world entrepreneurs to in-world educators to non-profit foundations to developers working on small projects that seem to be beneath your notice (though they were much in evidence at the Ludium) to others in the tech industry. Both the academics in this area and the (medium to large) MMO developer folks need to recognize that we're not the only people here anymore, and to frame everything as ultimately falling into that kind of divide is increasingly out of touch.
@Jeff: Mostly agreed, although I can't claim to know what SWI's plans are for what they send to politicians beyond the platform. If some elaboration of the positions comes together, it will be up to them if they choose to incorporate that. In any case, I share your hope that further development of recommendations surrounding these issues happens.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 14:23
[NB: At the bottom of the OP I've added links to a number of blog posts that Ludium 2 attendees have written. Please let me know here if you find one I've missed!]
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 14:42
Fortunatelly, if " some " academics would like so much to buy/sell/take all sorts of advantages of makers' efforts and work, for financial , political and cotroll gain , we can move our servers in Hong Kong at any time. Just read this thread , from its beginning .
@ Thomas, answer pls only this question : who elected all of you there to represent the VWs makers ? If you insist on this position, the USA based games will very soon become a deep niche.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 14:48
@Amarilla: I'm not sure that I understand your comment, especially the first part, but I'll try to answer your question. If you're asking who elected me to be speaker, at the conference, it was the attendees. If you're asking who elected the attendees, then the answer is no one (as I explained above). It was an open conference, which had people from a number of different sectors with interests in virtual worlds.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 14:58
I was there.
("The Industry" AKA actual world developers) were underrepresented. This truth hurt the results. Reactions like Mikes were predicted by several folks, including myself.
The game definitely helped in some ways and hindered in others in creating the results.
I think it was a great start, despite the significant weaknesses.
I was pleasantly surprised at the consensus building that happened around many key issues. It'd be a shame to lose that spirit and energy, especially in an environment that is already quickly turning congressional. :-)
Rather than argue the process (which is passed) - let's iterate the actual statements on the wiki. Isn't it open for everyone to comment on?
Lets put in the supporting paragraphs and suggest alternate wording and define terms and whatever else it takes to whip this puppy into the shape it was intended to be.
Randy
Posted by: F. Randall Farmer | Jul 02, 2007 at 14:58
@Randy: /cheer
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 15:00
Well there are a couple of things we agree on, Thomas: well said, Jeff and Randy.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 02, 2007 at 15:11
The first resolution states
-A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed
Who counts as a stakeholder? So far I've seen
practicing lawyers, virtual world entrepreneurs,in-world educators, non-profit foundations, developers working on small projects, MMO developers working on medium/large projects, others in the tech industry, and academics in this area.
I'm none of those (I am an academic but not in this area) so my primary concern is the one implied in the second declaration, the inhabitants of virtual worlds.
-A players’ bill of rights should be drafted
Unlike Mike, I'm not at all worried about industry having its say. I'm more worried about ONLY industry having a say. In the short run I'm ok with the inhabitants being represented by Julian and Ren ;)
In the longer run I have the same concerns first expressed here by Ola. You responded with the possibility that industry wouldn't be put in a position to speak for players, as they would be represented in such a body as well, perhaps by any of the number of prominent scholars who are also participants in virtual worlds, or by prominent participants identified by some other means.
I'm not sure I'm happy being represented by prominent inhabitants unless I have faith in those other means.
Looking forward, how can the divergent interests of millions of virtual world inhabitants be represented in policy formation?
Posted by: JuJutsu | Jul 02, 2007 at 15:20
@JuJutsu: That is of course the kind of question that has bedeviled many for many years, from political scientists to politicians themselves. There are number of different possibilities, including an umbrella association of some sort that could hold elections, or with officers that could make appointments, but it would need to span many divides. It is also conceivable that a number of different organizations, each from developers, entrepreneurs, players, or academics (to name some big chunks) could agree to form a group with representation from each. This kind of thing is always tricky -- like the EU, it depends upon big players and small, with the big players willing to sacrifice some of their sovereignty (as it were) for more effective policy over the long haul. I have no illusions that it would be a smooth road, but like Randy I felt that the Ludium gave me a bit of hope that a productive conversation between parties is possible. In any case, shooting for a truly representative and global organization at some point might be imaginable, but I'm in favor of starting a bit more humbly. Focusing on United States policymakers has its advantages, and there was actually a formal debate about it at the Ludium; fwiw, focusing on the US, versus launching a global virtual worlds policy initiative, won the debate.
And in response to your first concern, in addition to the (partial) list of attendees that I noted, there were players there, too (given that many of us are gamers as much as whatever else we are), though perhaps only a couple, like Ren, who are not also professionally involved in virtual worlds in some way, but of course all of these labels do start to break down.
@Mike: Great to hear.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 15:37
Get real guys, i dont't know what you're smoking but it's harmfull , i can tell you. Me as gamer, i dont need and i dont want some academics to protect my rights ; change the damn EULA's so to comply with the EXISTING Laws and good practices and common sense.
Really, what's there in an academic brain these days ?! You wanna have a Metaverse, a Globalised VW and you wanna me , living in Baghdad in Sadr City to accept a Thomas to tell me what are my rights ?! Dudes , Sirs, guys gals and gays , get real. Wanna know why you lose gamers ? I can tell you why : because we dont trust your EULAs and practices. " SL, free to play and easy to make a fortune while playing a game " my arse.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 15:51
@Amarilla: You might imagine what Las Vegas would be like if most policymakers felt the same way as you do. Games with cash or goods at stake are, in some sense, a form of gambling, and in gambling there are all kinds of ways that the "House" can skim off the top, mislead players, etc. That is why there is a Nevada Gaming Commission, and a similar reasoning seems to underlie CCP's recent claim that it will move forward with player oversight. You're certainly free to want a completely unregulated (whether by the industry itself, government(s), or some other body) virtual world experience, but you have not made an argument for it here. In some sense, the question may be moot -- many old hands in this area see regulation of some kind as inevitable, so it might be best to try to think through what may work and what definitely won't. I'm not even going to respond to the assertion that this effort was solely one by academics. That has been answered many times in this thread. (Can we see this landscape in more than the three colors of maker-scholar-player? Good lord.)
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 16:07
Yes i do know how Las Vegas felt about covered online gambling sites. This is why i want the Govts to regulate the VWs, because any group of academics have no accountability to me.
What you're trying here is to " hijack " the voice of makers and players.
Btw , you're also completelly free to want unregulated lawless gambling sites as well. But you didnt made any valid arguement for why would that be desirable.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 16:20
"(Can we see this landscape in more than the three colors of maker-scholar-player? Good lord.)"
Yes we can, try this : player's money and work, makers' money and work , game owner's money and work . Add " interest " .Add RL Laws , regulations , policies. Your place in this equation is exactely out : so you could be impartial and provide us some valuable ideeas of how to solve the issues. Take again a look at that " Declaration...." , it's just a bombastic form without valuable content for the equation's members above. All you do there is to reiterate again that the " commerce-orientated " VWs have issues wich should be addressed. We already knew that, thank you.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 16:29
@Amarilla: You have misunderstood a fair amount of what's being said here, at least as far as I can tell. Now you're saying that you think we're saying that academics should regulate virtual worlds?!? The project here is to involve many interested parties to develop policy recommendations that would go to *government* policy makers, which is now who you say you want to regulate virtual worlds. Of course, one possibility is to develop an organization of stakeholders who might be able to show/convince governments that they can be trusted with some virtual world regulation. Perhaps it's that possibility that you are highly skeptical of, because of the possibilities for corruption, etc? I agree that it is no easy feat to do it, if the only parties involved are the virtual world makers.
What you're trying here is to " hijack " the voice of makers and players.
It's hard to make sense of what your position is, quite frankly, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to be saying here that you want the players and the makers (and how are they different from the "game owners"?) to have a voice and regulate virtual worlds? So which is it? The government, or players and makers? And how are the problems of maker self-interest which you've noted solved here? And, by the way, there are other groups involved, beyond academics, including many listed above that don't easily fit into any of your categories. Do they get a voice? One of the fastest-growing uses of virtual worlds is for education. Do educators get a voice?
Lastly, if you don't think academics have anything useful to add to our understanding of virtual worlds, um, why do you read this blog?
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 16:45
Oh, i have tons to learn from academics , i totally agree . Again please, tell me, who stopped you to start that discussion , held at Ludium /SWI here at TN first ? Who forced you to post the resuls in such a hurry in TN/wiki ; i hope you agree that the " Declaration " is very far away from what it could look like , if you were to discuss it more few days here at TN. You just had to meet and discuss like the Internet never has been invented yet.
We expect a wider range of insights from academics ; we expect you to apply the " analysis & sinthesis " after listening to more opinions and inputs and feedback than you did there.
I'm gonna tell you very clear my position : the VWs should change their EULAs to become in accompliance with the existing laws and regulations; if that gonna kill some particuliar " business ", so be it; we wont miss it.
For a start, i can tell you - for free - an ideea : remove from EULA , the : " ....we reserve the right to kick you out for no reason at any time , without any compensation ".
Don't sugar-coat it in lawyers' bla-bla terms , it's very easy and simple to do it , and you dont need a " Declaration " .
Also are a lot more issues wich can be solved in a manner satisfactory to a wide range of games ,Countries/Govts laws, policies and interest
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 17:54
Sorry for this, but i had to add :
take the damn money out from games, and all the probles gets solved. Just let the gamers have fun playing the game, let them manage the RMT between them , player to player . Sell your game on subscriptions base and let the market decide . Virtual commerce in Virtual Worlds is just another fancy name for scams. Bluring the lines between virtuality and reality , when it's about money, porn , politics....it's just wrong.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 18:06
@Amarilla: Thank you, that does clear things up a bit. No one "forced" me to do anything with regard to the Ludium and its results, so I'm still a bit confused about that, but as for the declaration, there is little reason to expect it to be insightful like a good academic paper might be. The point is that it was *not* produced through that kind of process, or by a consulting firm, or by a company, etc. It was produced through a collectively deliberative process, democratic as far as it went, and it has all the familiar features of that. I agree that there is much that could be done to improve it, as I've said all along.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 18:21
Still. That collective was too small compared to the number of significant VWs acting on market at this momment;it's not representative so it's not democratic; and when i say " you " i dont mean " YOU ". If indeed Ludium/SWI wanted something serious , TN was available as a serious and richer environment .
Oh and you've mentioned education and public policies :
while in some USA States the word " fuck " is common language, in some European places is criminal offence; sure you cannot filter half of the dictionary ; but for sure you can remove " boobs " and the alike covered sexual features/graphics; or rate your game accordingly.
I'm sure we can sort things out by discussing and sharing opinions and positions ; we both know that some VWs are based actually on false advertising, deception , mislead and are operating in the gray area of laws and regulations ; that grey area is not that grey as some makers are trying to sugest twisting the words like " virtual ".
Until you discuss and reach some common conclusions and goals satisfactory for a majority of the involved parts, you can call it a " Fictional Virtual Declaration ".
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 18:45
@Amarilla: /sigh. I'm not going to continue to respond to pointless denigration of the declaration. It serves no purpose. Most in this thread, it seems, have come to agree that this was a beginning, not an end, and that, if nothing else, this bold move by Ted and SWI has brought this issue to the fore and prompted further action. The point now is to move on to improve the statements with the online tools and other means available to us; your disparaging comments are neither novel nor productive.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 19:30
I'm very sorry to say : you keep mention the " productive " word. Produce what ? Why would we IMPROVE on a canava already stated by you ? Most in this thread it seems disagrees exactely with the statements offered for improvement. If what i've mentioned is already so well known," not novel", why didn't you improved the " Declaration " accordingly, before to post it ? Very convenient, your " Declaration " says nothing and you refuse to discuss it's base. All you want is to improve the " given ". Good luck .
You pretend to have academic discussions while you refuse to discuss the very subject . What does a word like " denigration " have to do with an academical discussion ?
Any time somebody rises the core issues of the " Declaration " , you just " ...look forward for further discussions and improvements ".
Maybe you should start the whole thingie from scratch. First - discussion , then- conclussions and declarations.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 02, 2007 at 20:27
@Amarilla: Much of the answer to your concerns have already been stated, but I will try to respond again. We should improve upon what the Ludium produced because there is more to be done. SWI may choose to include descriptive paragraphs with the declaration that they send to candidates -- who knows? In any case, and no matter what SWI chooses to do, the people who have weighed in here for the most part have agreed that this is an area that needs attention, and that the Ludium's declaration may be a place to start. No one's objecting to seeing the declaration as a starting point but you. And, as Nathan put it, if it had been a dense report or something, with no provocative form, then I am sure that it would not have prompted the discussion it has. You may of course disagree.
I wouldn't agree that most who have weighed in don't agree with the statements, but in any case this thread has been primarily occupied with discussions about the Ludium's process itself, rather than direct discussions of the planks of the platform (though there has been some of that). As speaker for the conference, I see my role as being about letting people know what happened, and the result, and hopefully getting to talk about some of the issues. Others who were there have weighed in on areas closer to their expertise, and that's as it should be.
So, no one's refusing to discuss the substance of the proposals, and in fact I mean to get back to Susan's comment above, which was definitely intriguing. Your suggestion that EULA's should drop the "we reserve the right to kick you out for no reason at any time , without any compensation" provision seems to be one that some of the makers might strongly object to, and I'd love to hear their responses. You might also consider, however, that a player's bill of rights might at least in part be about some of the very protections that you see as missing in current, typical EULAs.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 21:20
@Thomas: I think it's a good start. My (hopefully productive) comments.
"A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed." OK... to do what? I think this one could use some meat. Is the group meant to make additional policy recommendations? To vote games/worlds in/out of a "you meet the standards" list? To provide rulings on player/publisher disagreements? Before I can be for/against a group like this, I'd need to know more about its purpose and metrics.
"A players’ bill of rights should be drafted." I'm for this. Whether or not it is enforceable or completely universal, it's a good starting point. And if certain spaces don't want to sign on, well that's fine. But the ones that do might benefit from some similarities of vision.
"A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users." Again, I agree. It would be very helpful. I have no idea how you'd do this, but I think it would be helpful in more than just VWs/games.
"Virtual world designers should have freedom of expression." I think this is so vague as to be meaningless. Freedom to express... what? The rules of the world? Graphic joy? Ultraviolet rays? I don't find the term or requirement to be useful, so it bugs me.
"Virtual worlds should include plain-language End-User License Agreements (EULA) to enable all individuals to understand their rights." Beauty. This should probably go into the "Players Bill of Rights," if that comes about.
"There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications." That's not a policy itself; it's a description of (I think) reality. Maybe different sets of rights could go into the "Players Bill of Rights" depending on the type of space and/or player. But stated baldly like this, my reaction is... yeah. So? Again... not particularly useful as a free-standing statement.
"Access is critical to virtual worlds, so net neutrality must be maintained." I don't know that this is true. Politically speaking, I'm pro net neutrality... but I'm also pro free-speech for gamers, not exploiting workers and fewer cats on the Web. I'm not sure that including a political declaration that has something to do with every Web service and isn't particular to games is pertinent or meaningful.
"Game developers shall not be liable for the actions taken by players." Except for those actions that they enable or do not take reasonable cautions to prevent. This statement is, I think, probably true in many cases, but unenforceable in the details. Which means that it probably won't accomplish anything.
"Fair use may apply in virtual worlds that enable amateur creation of original works." May? When will it? Put it in the "Bill of Rights" under the specifics that differ from world-to-world.
"The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy." Nope. I agree, but, again... every industry wants government funding. Passing the plate in a list of declarations is... odd.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jul 02, 2007 at 22:34
Great stuff, Andy. Thank you. I'm with you on many of your reactions, but a few thoughts in reply.
First, we were explicitly charged with forming policy recommendations that could take one of two forms; basically either "government should...x" or "government should support research on...x", so I think the funding one fits that second category more than the others, and is alone, so it stands out. In general, it was a peculiar process (as any political deliberation amongst a heterogenous group is), so I understand the reaction to its hodge-podge nature.
Richard may want to weigh in on the "there are different virtual worlds..." one, as he gave a spirited defense of it from the podium just before the last vote (when it appeared to me a near miss for the top ten), but I think the problem with it is similar to that which characterizes the research funding one -- it's not a straight ahead "do x". Nonetheless, Richard was persuasive in arguing that this is the kind of thing that policymakers are quite likely to miss; i.e., that one size will not fit all when it comes to many virtual world policies that they might pursue. Perhaps it might have been better as part of the preamble, but in any case it's possible that it could be helped by turning it into a "should" like the others ("Policymakers should consider to what extent certain virtual worlds may carry specific policy concerns"?).
But, to attempt to tackle things in the order you have...
The "self-governance group" statement was shortened considerably in the course of merges and negotiations. I agree that it is too vague. Perhaps a second sentence that listed the kinds of things that would fall under this body's purview might help. The things you list were, I would surmise, the kinds of things that were in the attendees' minds, but in any case I agree that this needs amplification. Anyone want to give it a shot?
The freedom of expression one is also perhaps best answered from a world makers' point of view. The concern, as I take it (and it's a good one) is that since these worlds can be seen as works of art (which I think they are), therefore there is a risk that misguided policy (which didn't seek to protect them as vehicles for expression) might disallow certain subjects.
I agree with you about the net neutrality one, frankly, and in every respect (what, you all thought I voted for every one of these? ;-) ). Does anyone want to take a stand for why Andy's concerns are overridden by the need for this to be part of sensible virtual world policy?
The liability one (and I notice that in these responses I'm answering some of Susan's observations here as well), if I recall correctly, drew some skeptical looks from the lawyers in attendance, who I believe shared your feeling that it was unenforceable. It got the votes, obviously, so this is another one that probably has a worthy champion, in my opinion, and one from whom it would be great to hear..
Agreed on the fair use issue. The wording for that one began, I recall clearly, as far worse -- a jumble that badly needed stream-lining. The "may" in it is, I'm sorry to say, mine, iirc, and I now (not frantically trying to get a coherent sentence together before a deadline) see it as unnecessary. I would certainly back a more forceful version of this; i.e., "Fair use applies..." But I await any objections... I like the idea of including it in the bill of rights in any case.
Getting back to the funding. I do think that it's valid to push for policymakers to direct funding to this new technology in which there is both an urgent public interest in learning more and a shortfall of research funds (yes, yes, there *always* is ;-) ).
Thanks again, Andy.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 02, 2007 at 23:05
Andy Havens>"A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed." OK... to do what?
This was one of those amalgam statements. I was in favour of having an industry body to represent the views of developers; others wanted a stakeholder body with a particular agenda. The statements were combined to be agenda-free and to be vague about what constitutes a "stakeholder", the implicit intention being to define these things later.
>Is the group meant to make additional policy recommendations? To vote games/worlds in/out of a "you meet the standards" list? To provide rulings on player/publisher disagreements?
Yes. I guess the main purpose would be to field enquiries about virtual worlds from the outside, much as any trade body would do, and to monitor the behaviour of members. For example, a developer affiliated with the trade body might have to follow higher standards of "player rights" than one that didn't; it would be up to the players then to decide whether they wanted to play only virtual worlds with the body's approval or not.
>Before I can be for/against a group like this, I'd need to know more about its purpose and metrics.
It would take months to set up this kind of body. We were just saying there's a hole there that needs filling; quite what fills it is a matter for more leisurely debate.
>"Virtual world designers should have freedom of expression." I think this is so vague as to be meaningless. Freedom to express... what?
What any artist expresses.
As an example, virtual worlds shouldn't be banned for content that would not be banned were it in a more traditional medium such as painting, sculpture, literature, ballet or film-making.
What it comes down to is that if there are restrictions on the creativity of designers (for example by not allowing them to follow through a story arc because of the effect it would have on the value of players' in-game assets) then we simply won't get professional virtual worlds.
>"Virtual worlds should include plain-language End-User License Agreements (EULA) to enable all individuals to understand their rights." Beauty. This should probably go into the "Players Bill of Rights," if that comes about.
It was suggested that these be merged, but the EULA people made a strong case that this was something outside the game, referred directly to the real-world legal situation, and should therefore be considered separately.
>"There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications." That's not a policy itself; it's a description of (I think) reality. Maybe different sets of rights could go into the "Players Bill of Rights" depending on the type of space and/or player. But stated baldly like this, my reaction is... yeah. So? Again... not particularly useful as a free-standing statement.
Well, you have to remember the "We resolve that" which goes in front of all the statements. "We resolve that there are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications" makes marginally more sense.
The point of this statement, which I paid a whole gold coin to advocate, is (as Thomas says) to ensure that we don't get one-size-fits-all "solutions" imposed by people with power but with an incomplete view of what virtual worlds are. It would be easy for a well-meaning legislator to kill off WoW by making laws intended to make SL accountable, or vice versa. For example, one of the other statements, "Fair use may apply in virtual worlds that enable amateur creation of original works", didn't originally have that rider about amateur creation, and while its effect on SL would probably have been positive its effect on game worlds would have been to legitimise RMT. This is something that could have a negative effect on game worlds.
>I'm not sure that including a political declaration that has something to do with every Web service and isn't particular to games is pertinent or meaningful.
You might if you couldn't play your virtual world of choice because some other developer paid your ISP to prioritise their world's packets at the expense of yours.
"Game developers shall not be liable for the actions taken by players." Except for those actions that they enable or do not take reasonable cautions to prevent. This statement is, I think, probably true in many cases, but unenforceable in the details. Which means that it probably won't accomplish anything.
Are you saying that there's no need for this statement because it's de facto true anyway on account of how law enforcement bodies can't prevent it? If so, I'd still prefer for it to be formally stated in law than carry on as some kind of act of deliberate civil disobedience.
"The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy." Nope. I agree, but, again... every industry wants government funding.
There was a strong speech by Corey Bridges pointing out exactly what you say: we need funding for research, but saying it has to come from the government (rather than industry or foundations or anywhere else) just looks as if that's our agenda for having the statements.
It's especially unfortunate that because the statement came in tenth, it appears last on the list and therefore the statements that go before it do indeed look as if they are leading up to this final "so give us the money" line...
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 03, 2007 at 03:38
">"Virtual worlds should include plain-language End-User License Agreements (EULA) to enable all individuals to understand their rights." Beauty. This should probably go into the "Players Bill of Rights," if that comes about.
It was suggested that these be merged, but the EULA people made a strong case that this was something outside the game, referred directly to the real-world legal situation, and should therefore be considered separately."
Oh, and players' rights are not something outside the game, reffered directly to the real world legal situations ?! You cannot legally define a separation between player and avatar , you keep saying that the lines are blured in this " new frontier environment " but wanna draft a bill of rights while keeping the EULA : " outside the game " ?! That means , the players' bill of rights becomes just : in-game . Very funny :)
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 05:01
Keeping all fingers and loose clothing away from the machinery for a bit.....
Speaking as one of the 'Industry' at the L2, I think it had a number of good results, @those above who think it was just an excuse for Ted to introduce us to Nick's English Pub (which is a fine pub, I might add).
One of the results is that you had current virtual world developers (Metaverse), Yahoo (current position unclear), Cisco, and others working side by side with an international group of very smart people (if this were a college course, it would have been a 500 level class) to discuss the thornier points often discussed on TN. We beat the holy heck out of these points. It was a very productive use of time, and we really moved the ball downfield towards getting to consensus on fun issues like self-regulation.
The Declaration so hotly contested above doesn't capture the totality of the discussion, but it's a start, as Prof. Malaby so often states. Each was the one-liner result of hours of debate and conversation, so they are for many of us 'mental-chapter-headings' to those conversations.
I think it is counterproductive to take the output of two days of work of 40+ people and second-guess it to death. The fact is that a good cross-section of individuals, academics, and industry voluntarily assembled to attempt to settle a number of the questions. It would have been better had more attended, but for whatever personal or professional resons, they chose not to.
We are all going to be impacted in some way by these issues, and the group at L2 were/are trying to help find the best path forward.
I think an open discussion on the wiki is a good way to proceed forward for those who chose not to attend, so we can move past the asynchronous wordsmithing and keep moving towards agreement.
What we are crafting now is not the first industry attempt at Virtual Worlds, as many on this list can personally attest. The prior attempts failed for many reasons, among which was lack of a clear direction forward between the vested parties. I'd propose we all work together towards agreement on the points (with all respective wordsmithing on the wiki) so we can move past this and towards more mainstream adoption.
Christian
p.s. Morgan, you're just upset that you tried to buy shots for a bunch of us Koithlu spies. :-)
Posted by: Christian Renaud | Jul 03, 2007 at 10:49
@Richard's thread about self-regulation, here is an example of what would be a failure-condition of industry self-regulation for the rest of the world:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/02/195245
Posted by: Christian Renaud | Jul 03, 2007 at 11:00
@Richard :"It was suggested that these be merged, but the EULA people made a strong case that this was something outside the game, referred directly to the real-world legal situation, and should therefore be considered separately."
Thomas Malaby says:
"Andy is absolutely right, in my opinion. Beyond that, there seems to be an assumption here that games and real life (or simply real stakes) are mutually exclusive. While it's a habit of thinking familiar in western societies, it's demonstrably not true. Just because something is a game does not, in any inherent way, keep it from being a site for the accumulation of capital and the exchange of real value; i.e., a site for lasting economic consequences and opportunities. (Gambling is a simple counter-example, but there are many others.)
It's a comfortable fiction to believe that a game must be somehow set apart from real life,..."
And both ( 3 ? ) of you subscribed to the same Declaration, right ?
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 12:37
@Amarilla: Of course. My only point in that quote (and elsewhere) is that games are not *inherently* set apart from everyday life. That is, just playing a game doesn't make the separation automatic. Of course, games can be successfully set apart, if never perfectly or entirely, by the practices and expectations of the players, the rules, the code (architecture), etc. Richard and I disagree about some things but not, I believe, about the social construction of what he and others call the 'magic circle'.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 03, 2007 at 12:53
Ok Thomas ; in this case, you just proved my point to be accurate : the legal, economic , social and political implications of VWs and EULAs , the players' rights , are not the subject of this thread nor of the " Declaration ".
It's a Fictional Virtual Declaration of Virtual Policy of Virtual World , appliable inside the magic circle.
In this case, what do you want talk to the lawmakers / Congressmen about ?!
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 13:29
"-Game developers shall not be liable for the actions taken by players ".
But the Patriotic Act says different.
"-A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users ".
Individual users' rights are different age-related in different USA States. Not to mention the wide-world.
Also, you sugest me to trust my RL infos to the same authority who leaked the coverage of an antiterror high ranked officier - Valerie Plame - ? The same authority who " pardoned " the convicted criminal ?
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 14:30
Thomas Malaby wrote:
Your suggestion that EULA's should drop the "we reserve the right to kick you out for no reason at any time , without any compensation" provision seems to be one that some of the makers might strongly object to, and I'd love to hear their responses.
F*** that.
Just about every other dev will tell you the same thing, in private. In public some of them will dissemble more but when you drill down into what they're really saying, that's what they're saying.
Nobody has a right to continuing access to a private service whether that's a virtual world or a bar or a magazine subscription. If you've already paid for something fixed (like time or a magazine-a-week or 5 beers) then pro-rata refunds are reasonable.
Yes, I know people will object that there are circumstances where this isn't true (the power company can't just cut you off in the middle of winter so easily), but even these companies essentially have policies that boil down to "F*** off." Their tolerance level for behavior that triggers banning is just a lot higher since the behavior of an individual user doesn't tend to have any discernable effect on other users. They're also dealing with far more essential services.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jul 03, 2007 at 14:37
Thanks, Matt.
@Amarilla: You are continually derailing this thread. If you are interested in contributing to this discussion in something other than a dismissive and pretty much incoherent way, then please do so, otherwise I will be forced to put on my moderator's hat, which I'd rather not do.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 03, 2007 at 14:42
No surprise, I agree with Matt's take on the idea that 'EULA's should drop the "we reserve the right to kick you out for no reason at any time , without any compensation" provision' -- though I might have said it slightly differently. :)
The same goes with some of the imagined rights (e.g. free speech) that might go along with a "player's bill of rights." Rights that we enjoy politically do not translate over to private companies, as Matt says: just try exercising your right to free speech in Disneyland and see what happens.
Now f you're talking about "rights" the way, say, companies like JetBlue have defined a Customer Bill of Rights with all the overt and tacit limitations (including that they can unilaterally revoke these "rights" whenever they please), then this might be good for business -- virtual world operators could certainly use some attitude adjustment in how they conduct customer relations. Anything with more teeth than that, forget it. Create a trade group and virtual world developers/operators will ignore it; legislate it and they'll move out of the country. "Players rights" aren't going to happen to any degree more than they make immediate and overt good business sense.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 03, 2007 at 15:13
After " devil's advocate " role , next question :
customers rights and the Contracts of Adhesion are different in Europe / elswhere towards the USA ones;is the Declaration aimed solely at USA VWs and customers and lawmakers ?
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 15:37
I meant to add one other thought to my post above, at the risk of being seen as non-constructive again:
This discussion of things like "players rights" highlights why the involvement of those developing virtual worlds, especially commercial ones, is so vital to efforts like this: without them, these worlds do not exist. There is nothing to play in or experience. This simple reality seems to be easily forgotten in discussions like this one. Whatever worlds academics have studied, players have enjoyed, gold farmers have exploited, content creators have contributed to, etc., have either been commercial worlds, or been made possible by (thus far) much smaller non-commercial worlds that would themselves not exist if the commercial ventures hadn't gone there first.
This does not mean that commercial virtual world developers can, given market realities, blithely ignore what others have to say about their virtual worlds. But I think it's worth remembering that after all is said and done, in a very real way commercial developers do have the final word on many of these issues, simply because they are the ones who bring these worlds into existence. Even legislating against this (a remote possibility, from my POV) will make little difference, as developers will simply move their operations to a more friendly country.
I continue to hope that academics, middleware suppliers, players, content creators, and potentially, some day, government and similar other stakeholders will be able to contribute to moving virtual worlds forward. But it is an essential and existential mistake to believe that this gives non-developer stakeholders an equal say in their development; that simply isn't the case.
And thus the irony, to me, that this gathering would have gone on with potential stakeholders from every aspect of virtual worlds except the ones who actually bring them into being. I know this was just a beginning; and I'm glad that those allied with developers like Randy, Corey, and Christian were there. Nevertheless, this remains to me a glaring, perhaps fatal missing piece. That no commercial virtual world developers were willing or able to attend this gathering is something I'd suggest is worth looking into (as a separate issue) if this effort is to become viable.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 03, 2007 at 15:49
Thomas Malaby says:
Thanks, Matt.
@Amarilla: You are continually derailing this thread. If you are interested in contributing to this discussion in something other than a dismissive and pretty much incoherent way, then please do so, otherwise I will be forced to put on my moderator's hat, which I'd rather not do.
Put that hat on. Oh my, what i'm gonna do now ?!
You can label my posts as " derailing", the criticism as "denigration " , and dismissive and incoherent. Your problem is that TN's audience may have other oppinions.
See you next time when i'm less bored.
Posted by: Amarilla | Jul 03, 2007 at 16:11
@Mike: I don't disagree with any of your points. I think everyone understands that MMO developers (and the commercial ones perhaps in particular) are the most important group in this initiative, for lots of reasons that you state. I personally think it's a huge step forward for devs and others interested in these worlds to begin to recognize the range of stakeholders and the importance of having them participate in this kind of effort. I don't think anyone's saying that that means that they have something like "equal say" with developers.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jul 03, 2007 at 17:10
Whatever you do, I hope there will be more work on establishing a coherent vision to focus on. Like, focusing on what is specific to virtual worlds and where are the areas that are most critical. I don't think you are there yet...
The only points on the list that I feel are critical and possibly high-impact, are the EULA and net-neutrality ones. I hope those who are going to work on this decides to focus on only a few of the list-items with an eye on impact. How else are you going to get any results that matters for the users and creators of virtual worlds?
I.e. DiGRA probably can work for more research grants, eh? Developers and players have no interest in that, except perhaps by indulging in the affiliation. Having that item makes the list look like it was made by kids at the counter in a candy-store.
I also don't think I understand the fair-use point. How does it releate specifically to virtual worlds? Do you want copyright reforms? Or does the US provide fair use clauses which applies only to amateurs? I really don't get this.
Btw, most countries can't even bring themselves to ratify the existing vague WIPO treaties... There is no hope for copyright reforms on the global scale... And wouldn't fair-use of another work make it a "derivative work", btw?
Posted by: Ola Fosheim Grøstad | Jul 03, 2007 at 19:02
Mike Sellers>This discussion of things like "players rights" highlights why the involvement of those developing virtual worlds, especially commercial ones, is so vital to efforts like this
Recall that these statements came from a group of mainly academics who are in favour of virtual worlds. Imagine what would happen if anti-game politicians were to come up with a similar list.
>Create a trade group and virtual world developers/operators will ignore it; legislate it and they'll move out of the country.
If the developers won't fight their own corner, then it's left to their supporters to do so. If they disagree with what these supporters say, then they can either sulk or take matters back into their own hands.
Developers may not want a trade group, but it would only take a short series of unfortunate events for them to wish really badly that they had one.
Still, if you're fine with developers leaving the country rather than making their own case, it doesn't really matter.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jul 04, 2007 at 04:52
Richard: Imagine what would happen if anti-game politicians were to come up with a similar list. ... If the developers won't fight their own corner, then it's left to their supporters to do so.
Richard, you're talking about a "fight" that doesn't exist and shows no signs of existing -- this is an impending crisis manufactured out of the (to me) largely baseless concerns of a few people. The silent eye-rolling and more vocal push-back expressed here isn't about sulking or being unwilling to fight for something good; it's a matter instead of not jumping at imagined shadows and focusing on actually getting something done.
Believe me, if government regulation or the like ever becomes even potentially a real issue, companies that have billions of dollars invested in developing and/or publishing virtual worlds like Blizzard, NCSoft, Microsoft, EA, Sony, Bioware, K2, Shanda, WebZen, Funcom, and doubtless others -- to say nothing of the many vocal and articulate members of this community -- will show up with their lawyers and lobbyists ready to go.
Forward-looking workshops and symposia are good things, efforts to be applauded, as they help us shape a vision of the possible road ahead. As as I've said before, virtual world publishers could certainly use an attitude change regarding customer relations and the like. But don't mistake a weekend workshop for a representative "Congress" or a lack of participation by developers in an early effort like this one for "sulking" or being unwilling to step up. It's just that, really, there's nothing yet to step up to.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jul 04, 2007 at 10:39