--humdog
rules seem easy enough for people to talk about -- at first. everybody thinks they know what rules the rules are for a given game, and how they work. but rules are not that easy. the superficial simplicity of rules for gaming is a lie.
when most people think of rules what they think about are the rules that guide the operation of a game or a procedure. when people think of rules what they call to mind are the statements that say "do THIS!!!" "don't do THAT!!". these are nice rules and if that were all there was to rules, it would be easy and we could play our games in harmony and there would be no fights.
but rules, especially rules for MMORPGs are not like that. MMORPGs have multiple layers of rules and most of these rules are both unspoken and invisible to the naked eye.
i give an example: there is a layer of rules that has to do with the construction of the game. these are mathematical formulas and assumptions that guide the game, and that have to accounted for in order for the game to work. even as simple a game as tic tac toe, as katie salen and eric zimmerman have pointed out, is to one extent or another guided by the concept of the magic square.
another example: there is a layer of rules that are assumed to be there, but that nobody talks about or even thinks about or notices except when the invisible rules are broken. if you and i play checkers, i can make you impatient and upset and maybe even angry with me if i take too much time to make my move. there is a rule about how long i should wait between moves, and we don't talk about it, but we know that its there. we know its there because if i take too long, you will get annoyed with me for breaking that rule.
on account of this we can easily see that the rules that many players cling to like life-rafts in a game are on one level only the tip of the iceberg relative to the rules of a given game. it could also be that maybe the written rules are even the least important of all of the rules that govern any game.
i think that these invisible and unspoken rules need to be brought up to the surface of gaming and discussed, particularly where they impact MMORPGs. the invisible rules need to be described and discussed because in some cases their invisibility creates difficulty particularly where the invisible rules of a game contradict the written rules of a game.
nowhere is the contradiction between written and unwritten rules more visible than in TSO. There are people, including EA corporate representatives, who insist that the terms of service agreement (TOS) for TSO clearly describes the rules for TSO. i don't think this is true. the TOS makes an attempt, in the most awkward and general language possible, to describe the operational rules for TSO. the TOS also describes in much more practiced language the various uses that electronic arts (EA) is happy to make of any personal information, conversation, behavior, and/or any other activities that an end user may say or perform or participate in while under the TSO roof. the TOS, however, does not address any of the invisible rules of this game.
the TOS will fall down eventually fall down because the document was written by corporate lawyers and not by gamers. because it was written by lawyers whose expertise is the law and not gaming, the document does not allow for the operation of the invisible rules of MMORPGs within TSO. one of these invisible rules is that the operational rules are also part of the active game, and are meant, as TSO designer will wright once put it, to be "played". the operational rules are more paintbox than they are handcuffs. the operational rules of TSO were meant to be tools. they were not meant to be enforced like the california vehicle code. the operational rules of TSO were meant to be used to enrich play.
my thought is that EA ought to consider revising the TOS so that it openly accounts for the presence of the invisible rules of MMORPGs. ignorance of, and insensitivity to, the tension between visible and invisible rules, has robbed TSO of part of its potential.
Yes, I would agree, I trip on those invisible rules all the time. And I break them. On my game box, it says "Be Yourself. Or Be Somebody Else". But not everyone understands this very basic concept -- much less the seductively-whispered "Challenge Everything" in the game's opening credits -- the same way. It's as if they often say, sure, be somebody else, be a bear or a bottle blonde, but be sure to give various subtle or not so subtle flags strewn around your avatar about who you "really" are. Be sure to sprinkle your convos with enough RL credentials so that people know you "have a life."
Either you play the game of putting your picture up on RSO, or you put in an A/S/L, or you say during a skill session, gtg pick up kids, or whatever you do, but you must put out those markers. There are elaborate rules for how this works, and there are layers of it in the game, like patches of chilly or warm water you swim in inside a lake, and some people understand it one way, and others another way.
The worst thing you can do to break the rules is make a lot of Sims, and come on a lot so that people don't recognize you. I could write volumes about this. But it seems like it ought not to be a rule in a game where you *can* do this. Why do I do this? Because *I can*.
So let's hear some more examples.
Posted by: Dyerbrook | July 09, 2004 at 02:06 AM
well hummie, I would say that trying to get written rules to accord with the unwritten rules is pretty much impossible. Written rules are really fossilized hints and clues which we deploy to sort out the kind of behavior that is being commended and the kind that is being scorned. As Lessing has observed, law (or as the case may be, virtual law) is really about stories. The laws come later.
I don't see much point in trying to ask EA or anyone in power to fossilize the virtual rules in some written form, but it might be an interesting exercise for us to do it here. DB just gave one good example. Here's another: If you enter a property, don't be too loud. That doesn't merely mean avoid all caps, it also means you aren't supposed to try to steer the conversation. You are supposed to let it quietly flow in a kind of trivial direction. real points and sustained discussion are frowned upon. This isn't a criticism of the rule. Just an observation.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 09, 2004 at 11:56 AM
uri i don't really think anybody is going to do jack about it. i really don't.
but i do want to bring up the idea that the unwritten stuff is worth thinking about.
you yourself were impaled upon unwritten stuff. as you know.
Posted by: humdog | July 09, 2004 at 01:27 PM
Hum don't start it up again, you know and i know, uri knows, and cocoa knows, and anyone wiht a brain knows, IT CLEARLY states, linking to 3rd party websites, is against TOS, and will be taken seriously.
Posted by: Ian | July 09, 2004 at 01:47 PM
impaled upon unwritten stuff.
That's a hoot.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 09, 2004 at 02:05 PM
ok so some people here, ian, are going to make a career of having their brain sort of stuck to one concept, like an old fashioned phonograph record gets stuck in a groove, aren't they? i can do nothing about that.
if you read the op/ed however you will see that
i mention that operational rules are meant to be played. a person who plays the written rules in order to have a more interesting experience ought not to be penalized for doing so. i am prepared to go into more detail if required but it is, like, friday afternoon.
Posted by: humdog | July 09, 2004 at 03:40 PM
haha. hum, i just want you to explain to me, what imaginary rule that uri broke, so atleast i can understand your "compelling" argument, that he broke a rule that isn't there.
Posted by: Ian | July 09, 2004 at 04:10 PM
the unwritten rule was: don't hang out our dirty laundry for others to see.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 09, 2004 at 04:38 PM
Unwritten rule: Links to third party websites is perfectly ok as long as some butt monkey at EA approves of your content.
Posted by: Crush | July 09, 2004 at 06:32 PM
The written rule you broke was linking to a website (yours) which included cheat links on it.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 09, 2004 at 07:32 PM
I think the best example of the unwritten rule is verbal fighting in game - this is where the "Be somebody. Else" slogan completely falls apart. People always tend to armor themselves with RL info - I.E. "I dont care what you say, I know I'm successful because I own three businesses and dont have time to listen to you." Childish, but happens all too often.
Posted by: mafioso | July 09, 2004 at 08:17 PM
i didnot say "rule that isn't there".
i said "invisible rule". i believe that
there are two posts above this one mentioning
unwritten rules.
thank you,
humdog
Posted by: humdog | July 09, 2004 at 08:51 PM
Okay well explain what this "unwritten rule" is, please.
Posted by: Ian | July 09, 2004 at 09:20 PM
i think i explained this already but i will try again:
there is an invisible rule to TSO that was voiced by will wright the designer. that rule
is that he expects the players to play with the written rules, to use them, in other words, for
purposes other than what they say. he said that
he does not expect the written rules to be observed.
Posted by: humdog | July 10, 2004 at 06:49 PM
I don't think that's what Will Wright meant.
I seriously doubt he believes any rule set out by EA - such as, for example, thou shalt not use cheats, exploits, or 3rd party programs - is pointless, or that he expected them to be broken, or that breaking them would be good, or anything of the kind.
You've said, as far as I can tell, that he considers these written rules expendable by the players. Can you show us where he said that? Can you provide a pertinent quote or passage? (If you already have somewhere, I've missed it; please repeat.)
You've also contended that Uri was banned due to an "invisible" rule - not the societal type, such as thou shall not speak in capital letters in chat, or the ones Dyerbrook speaks of, but apparently one made by EA itself that says thou shall not speak against the game makers, or thou shall not point out bad things within the game, or some such. (Which people do all the time on Stratics without being banned.)
So, let me see if I follow you correctly. You are apparently presenting two arguments:
1. Any and all of the rules of the game - as stated in TOS - are considered irrelevant by Will Wright, as mere verbiage to be interpreted and played with in any manner the players see fit. One of those rules - linking to cheat sites - was broken by Uri, causing him to be banned. But you are saying that that shouldn't have mattered, or that the TOS should be rewritten, since Will Wright himself doesn't consider those rules valid?
2. And you are also saying that the rule for which Uri was truly banned was not the actual rule he actually broke, but was in fact an "invisible" one; one which supposedly says thou shall not speak against EA (even though that goes on constantly on the Stratics site)?
If I have correctly followed whatever murky points you are making, I think your conclusions are both illogical and opposed to the preponderance of the evidence.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 10, 2004 at 07:49 PM
Isn't it painfully obvious that Uri broke the unwritten rule of "Thou shalt not make EA look bad" and was persecuted on a technicality as a result?
Why is this still being discussed?
Posted by: mafioso | July 10, 2004 at 08:27 PM
Hum, please again, answer my question, what "unwritten" rule did he break. Because I can see in the ToS, that he linked to 3rd party websites.
Mafioso, that could have factored into EA's final decision. But LINKING to a cheating website, in itself, is intolerable.
Posted by: Ian | July 10, 2004 at 09:24 PM
I took the liberty, to go threw the ToS, and these are some rules that Uri broke, or connects to the rules that he broke.
These rules can be found at:
http://www.ea.com/global/legal/tos.jsp
Post, transmit, promote, or distribute Content that is illegal. ·
Post messages for any purpose other than personal communication, including without limitation advertising, promotional materials, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or make any commercial use of our Service. ·
Use or distribute “auto” software programs, “macro” software programs or other “cheat utility” software program or applications. ·
You will not exploit any bug in the Service or in any EA product to gain unfair advantage in the game and you will not communicate the existence of any such bug (either directly or through the public posting) to any other user of the Service. ·
Posted by: Ian | July 10, 2004 at 09:27 PM
wow, I did all that? I must have been up all night breaking rules.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 11, 2004 at 04:42 AM
this is so full of shit, ian. it really is.
what content did uri transmit that is illegal? where did he transmit it? it is my hope that when you say "transmit illegal content" you are not referring to the alphaville herald. if you are saying that publishing the alphaville herald is equivalent to "transmit illegal content" then are you suggesting that it is ok to lock up or deport the publisher of the LA times of the NY times because they publish unflattering content about the man i must unfortunately call the president of the USA? if this is what you are saying may i remind you that it is a point of view that you share with latin american banana republics?
or are you saying that publishing the alphaville herald is "posting messages for any purpose other than personal communication"? if the alphaville herald, a blog, was not personal communication, then what was it? do you understand the principles behind blogging, ian? do you get that a blog is inherently, obviously, and even by design, and intent, a form of personal communication? can you say one-to-many, ian?
the rest of what you are suggesting is also a dog turd, ian.
go on the web and google "will wright". go read the interviews where he talks about how cool it is that TSO players figured out how to exploit bugs. go read about how will wright calls player interaction with game rules "creative".
uri did nothing. and yet he suffered personal and financial loss as a result of his participation in TSO. EA should reimburse him for these losses. let right be done.
how can you be so persistently and joyfully stupid about this issue.
Posted by: humdog | July 11, 2004 at 10:44 AM
1. Post, transmit, promote, or distribute Content that is illegal.
Key word there:POST....
2. Post messages for any purpose other than personal communication, including without limitation advertising, promotional materials, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or make any commercial use of our Service. ·
KEY WORDs: Post messages for any purpose other than personal communication, including without limitation advertising, promotional materials,
and
or make any commercial use of our Service. ·
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 12:32 PM
"uri did nothing."
What Uri did, for any reader who may have come upon this belatedly, was break the rule that you can't link to your web site if it has on it links to cheat sites, which it did.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 11, 2004 at 01:03 PM
how can you be so persistently and joyfully stupid about this issue.
I really think you should ask yourself that question.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 01:32 PM
also hum, that is will wright, what he said, that doesn't count. he sold his 'soul' to EA, which controls the game. attempting to quote him is "blasphemes". He doesn't own TSO anymore. he made it, he was paid, he is done. EA runs the game, and they make the rules. You don't like them, then leave.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 02:24 PM
Ian, your defense of "da rules" gives me great mirth. I mean you are all worried about me linking to simolean sellers, but you ARE a simolean seller, PLUS a cannon seller (cannons acquired by churning temp accounts with fake cc numbers), AND you're a rare pet dealer AND you use (or used) Nyk's bot to acquire many of your ill-gotten gains. Exactly what is your beef here, Mr. Rule defender? It seems like you are saying it's ok to run cheat programs but not to report on their existence.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 11, 2004 at 02:41 PM
Uri, I never said what I was doing complies with the Terms Of Service. I have admitted what I have done, and still do. I am not defending the rules. If I got caught, I will accept my punishment, and wouldn't cry like a little school girl. I would own up to what I did and accept the fact, that I did it. But you on the otherhand, ... are not owning up to what you did, and admitting it's against ToS. ]
Btw, it isn't fake CC numbers, that is against federal law. So think about what you say, before it sounds ignorant.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 02:44 PM
Ian you can't both say that it is against the rules and be so proud that you break them. Obviously you don't consider the rules to have normative force -- you just think this is a game in which if you get caught you get spanked. We are talking about rules with genuine normative force -- not stuff on a piece of paper that may or may not be invoked when EA wants to slap someone around. Honestly guys, rules are not ink markings on pieces of paper. Those are just hints about how we are to understand acceptable behavior in the context of 2 thousand years of ethical and legal traditions. No ink markings can subvert those deeper traditions.
And just so we have the facts straight (not that it actually matters)I say again that there were no in game links to this VERY dangerous and illegal blog when they terminated my account.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 11, 2004 at 03:29 PM
No Urizenus. You're caught, you're banned. I understand that. I have been banned many times. They are not hints. Hints wouldn't make you sign a document, saying you understand these RULES, and if you break them, THERE ARE consquences. I got what you're trying to say though. That since these are not written in STONE, that you can break them. That is wrong, and wishful thinking. When you hit "I agree", whether you read it or not, you gave your sim's soul to EA. they can do whatever they want, when they want.
Your next argument, if it is Yours, or your bitch, humdogs, that you have real life value on your items. I agree that they do have Real Life value. However, EA has made it clear, that there is no real life value to them, and that they even OWN THE OBJECT. You are just using it, (again) you do not own the object yourself. Even if they were to "give you" money, who decides how much they are worth, oh that is right, EA OWNS IT, they can declare this "item" you have to be 1 cent.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 04:06 PM
So, why are we still going on with this rubbish? lol.
old news. gone. dead. not relevant. Living in the past Ian, stop living in the past already. And personal crusades filled with irony are boring to read.
This discussion is over.
- RB
Posted by: RB | July 11, 2004 at 05:13 PM
It isn't over. Obviously Uri doesn't understand that he deserved his termination. RB, it is not ironic, nor a personal crusade. It would only be ironic, if I say, what I do, is perfectly fine, and I don't think what I am doing is against ToS, or if i get banned, and I cry about it. Then that would be ironic. But I openly admit, I cheat, and break the ToS everyday. To you it's over, but until Uri and hum understands what happened, was right, it's not.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2004 at 06:25 PM
We are running through this argument again because Humdog brought it up again.
The rules are the rules, and you broke one, Uri, and you got banned, and everyone can understand this except you.
You can blather on all you want about ink marks on pieces of paper and hints and all the legal mumbo jumbo you like to throw in, but in the end, virtually no one (excluding Humdog) would agree with your notion that you didn't really break any rule, or that if you did break it, it doesn't really matter because the rules themselves are meaningless.
And for the readers - if we have any - allow me to clarify what Uri clarified, that at the time of his banning he had no such links on this newspaper:
1. Uri originally had direct links to cheat sites on the AVH newspaper, which he advertised in game, unaware that it was against the rules to link to a site which itself has cheat links on it.
2. Someone reported him. EA gave him a 72-hour suspension, citing this rule.
3. During that time, Uri says (and I take his word for it), he removed the links from his profile/property descriptions. He thought that would be the end of it - as any of us might reasonably think - but he was banned a few hours later.
4. Which, within the TOS, EA can do. They can terminate you during a suspension, after a suspension if you do the same thing again, or even before ANY suspension at all. Just ban - poof, you're gone. No warning. That is what they can do. That is what they have done to others.
In your entire argument, Uri, you give yourself airs thinking EA ever considered the editorial content of this rag so dangerous in the first place as to require Draconian measures on their part to stifle it. You were banned because of your links, just as others were. (Maybe they enjoyed banning you more than the others, but the fact is, the same thing has happened to others.)
The newspaper still sits here, you still sit in the game, and the AVH still sits as a property in the game. If they thought you were such a threat or were so determined to apply their rules to you specifically and specially, you sure as heck wouldn't still be so transparently around.
You broke a rule, you were banned; you are still breaking the rules (by playing at all), and you are still putting out this vessel of various opinions on various games.
So nothing has changed. All that has changed is you have come up with some pretty far-out theories to try to explain why it is okay for you to break rules, probably because you are still breaking them and need to justify yourself.
In short, you don't fool anyone except Humdog.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 11, 2004 at 06:29 PM
We are running through this argument again because Humdog brought it up again.
The rules are the rules, and you broke one, Uri, and you got banned, and everyone can understand this except you.
You can blather on all you want about ink marks on pieces of paper and hints and all the legal mumbo jumbo you like to throw in, but in the end, virtually no one (excluding Humdog) would agree with your notion that you didn't really break any rule, or that if you did break it, it doesn't really matter because the rules themselves are meaningless.
And for the readers - if we have any - allow me to clarify what Uri clarified, that at the time of his banning he had no such links on this newspaper:
1. Uri originally had direct links to cheat sites on the AVH newspaper, which he advertised in game, unaware that it was against the rules to link to a site which itself has cheat links on it.
2. Someone reported him. EA gave him a 72-hour suspension, citing this rule.
3. During that time, Uri says (and I take his word for it), he removed the links from his profile/property descriptions. He thought that would be the end of it - as any of us might reasonably think - but he was banned a few hours later.
4. Which, within the TOS, EA can do. They can terminate you during a suspension, after a suspension if you do the same thing again, or even before ANY suspension at all. Just ban - poof, you're gone. No warning. That is what they can do. That is what they have done to others.
In your entire argument, Uri, you give yourself airs thinking EA ever considered the editorial content of this rag so dangerous in the first place as to require Draconian measures on their part to stifle it. You were banned because of your links, just as others were. (Maybe they enjoyed banning you more than the others, but the fact is, the same thing has happened to others.)
The newspaper still sits here, you still sit in the game, and the AVH still sits as a property in the game. If they thought you were such a threat or were so determined to apply their rules to you specifically and specially, you sure as heck wouldn't still be so transparently around.
You broke a rule, you were banned; you are still breaking the rules (by playing at all), and you are still putting out this vessel of various opinions on various games.
So nothing has changed. All that has changed is you have come up with some pretty far-out theories to try to explain why it is okay for you to break rules, probably because you are still breaking them and need to justify yourself.
In short, you don't fool anyone except Humdog.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 11, 2004 at 06:30 PM
testing
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 11, 2004 at 07:12 PM
i think we are still going on with this discussion precisely because it is not dead.
Posted by: humdog | July 11, 2004 at 09:57 PM
i think we are still going on with this discussion precisely because it is not dead.
Posted by: humdog | July 11, 2004 at 09:58 PM
i think we are still going on with this discussion precisely because it is not dead.
Posted by: humdog | July 11, 2004 at 09:58 PM
if only it were. Ian and Coco seem to be obsessed with this issue. still. and it's completely beyond me as to why.
Posted by: urizenus | July 12, 2004 at 02:56 AM
if only it were. Ian and Coco seem to be obsessed with this issue. still. and it's completely beyond me as to why.
Posted by: urizenus | July 12, 2004 at 02:56 AM
test
Posted by: urizenus | July 12, 2004 at 03:21 AM
Yes. I see other people bringing up this issue, and in my humble opinion Uri seems like he'd be rather content to drop it. And I will still say that EA enforces its rules selectively, and yes, we all agreed to give them that power. Bottom line is Uri can't complain, but I don't exactly see him complaining either.
Posted by: mafioso | July 12, 2004 at 08:02 AM
the discussion continues because
(1) the issue is important
(2) the discussion hasn't ended yet
Posted by: humdog | July 12, 2004 at 09:31 AM
the discussion hasn't ended because it isn't over yet.
Posted by: humdog | July 12, 2004 at 09:45 AM
What you really mean, Uri, is "Coco and Ian seem obsessed with not letting falsehoods stand every time we try to pass off another one."
Allow me to point out once again that neither I nor Ian brought up this issue. Humdog brought up this issue:
"you yourself were impaled upon unwritten stuff. as you know."
Uri knows I'm not obsessed with this issue. He knows I don't bring it up, and I don't speak about it unless he or Humdog brings it up. I don't believe Ian ever has either.
But then, Uri is disingenuous in the extreme.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 12, 2004 at 11:26 AM
testy
Posted by: Ian | July 12, 2004 at 03:18 PM
test
Posted by: Ian | July 12, 2004 at 05:39 PM
AUTHOR: Ian
EMAIL: [email protected]
URL: http://www.alphavillegazette.com
IP: 141.157.13.85
DATE: 07/12/2004 21:26:54
Posted by: Ian | July 12, 2004 at 09:26 PM
whether the discussion *should* be over or not, it isn't over until people stop discussing. It at least has the virtue of bringing up the nature of rules and the question of whether they are just things written on paper by someone or whether they are tacitly negotiated by the participants in a community.
Posted by: Urizenus | July 13, 2004 at 03:05 AM
But uri, humdog brought it up
Posted by: Ian | July 14, 2004 at 04:25 AM
i have read this blog for a few months. during those few months, the uri issue comes up about once or twice a week. usually it comes up from the coco/ian coalition and it comes up as "uri you bastard you did a bad thing, they caught you,
and you got what you deserve!"
my point has merely been the following:
(1)this is a game, not kindergarten.
(2) part of gaming culture and social interaction permits the rules to be USED
rather than enforced
(3) uri, as a publisher, has the same protections
as the publisher of the new york times or the los angeles times
(4) uri was denied due process and suffered a real-world financial loss as a result
(5) the TOS is a totalitarian document that denies the protections of the US bill of rights
to the people who sign it (people in TSO have
fewer rights than do prisoners under the geneva convention relative to communication)
(6) coco and ian are so far unable and/or unwilling to describe and explain (a) how they
arrive at their special interpretation of the TOS and (b) who or what empowers that interpretation, other than the "tigger says so" defense.
(7) this issue is important because what happened to uri could happen to anybody so long as people do not examine the implications of TOS agreements as they are written presently.
also i note that the extent of the mental firepower of the coco/ian argument consists of
the "humdog is uri's bitch" argument in one form or another. now that is a fine argument if they want to make it -- and i admire it in the full glory of its joyous stupidity -- but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that
is happening on earth or above the earth or below the earth either, or even in far distant galaxies,or in anybody's imagination other than the seven autonomic nervous system cells that power the coco/ian coalition.
now i think i have been very nice and reasonable about this whole issue. i have never called you a bunch of six year old playground despots, nor have i questioned how long it took you to get through the fourth grade, and i have never told you how amusing i find your logic. no. i have not done that. i have asked you nice and reasonable questions politely, and you have persisted in writing arguments that containing logic that sounds as if it had been reasoned out by monkeys from hell. soon i may lose my fine spanish temper with you two morons, but not today.
thank you for your time and trouble,
humdog
Posted by: humdog | July 14, 2004 at 09:40 AM
Have it your way, dearie.
coco
Posted by: Cocoanut | July 14, 2004 at 11:36 AM