Community Values Project -- Input/Feedback Welcome!

[Uruare]

Pile of Brainstorm, V.1.0.0, Alpha-Wozzit Edition.

 

 

Mission Statement: To provide the SWTOR playerbase, irrespective of personal gaming style, phlosophy, creed, religion or political preferences a valuable document resource that will assist them in both utilizing the social-consequence tools made available to us by game mechanics and Customer Service and identifying ways by which to improve the quality of not just their own, but everybody's, social experiences.

 

 

 

Document Variables --

 

1. -- Identify common points and causes of negative and negatively escalating conflict between players with different playstyle and social preferences. Collaborate on how to define these points as well as upon community-beneficient methods by which to address them.

 

 

2. -- Maintain a positive, conversational ambience of dialogue with the intended audience. Tailor concepts, circumstance vignettes and suggested methods of address in an appealing, non-accusative, companionable manner.

 

 

3. -- Maintain consistency with all EULA/TOS and Forum regulations; strive to accent and support the spirit of their intention with elaborated examples of violations and suggested recourses to take in their address, as well as companionably-presented suggestions on how to avoid such violations one's self.

 

3.A -- Expand upon terms of infraction and violation to include 'grey area' material and social methodologies that, while technically permissable by the letter of the EULA/TOS and Forum rules, undermine the spirit of their intention by fostering or escalating negative conflict, create or broaden divisions between players or elsewise only serve to encourage heightened animosity, resentment and discontent.

 

4. -- Discuss, sample query and refine terms of values orientation where EULA/TOS and Forum regulations, in their implications, do not or cannot serve as operable platforms of reference, or exceed the capabilities of the EULA/TOS and Forum regulations, for whatever reason, to be able to serve as a structural platform for.

 

 

5. -- Maintain, at all times, a community-centric; 'Open Door'; policy in regard of feedback and continued refinement of the document, once established, from the period of its formal establishment to the termination of the project.

 

6. -- Identify specific primary interest groups (Ex: Roleplayers, PVPers, Raiders, Soloers, Completionists/Achievers, Crafters, PVEers, etcetera) and secure volunteered input upon the the preliminary natures of existant social values held by identifiably distinct groups.

 

6.A -- Utilize, and continue to seek further input and constructive involvement from, volunteer representatives of the identifiable groupings of distinction in the principal formation and continued evolution of the document.

 

 

 

 

******

 

The initiative presented in project-outline format is a simple intention that found its inspiration in another thread.

 

The point and purpose of this project, beyond the direct summary of the mission statement, is equally simple; to help people by having a document they can look at, or be pointed at by others, for ideas on how to more successfully and more companionably navigate the social circumstances we, in an MMO, very often find ourselves in.

 

The game developers have provided us with a certain variety of tools, such as the /ignore function, as well as channels, such as reporting illegal, exploitative, excessively vulgar, flagrant or abusive behaviour to Customer Service.

 

 

These tools accomplish nothing if they are not used. The developers cannot know what the community wants or needs by way of social reinforcements and support in excess of some very broad terms frequently designated by legal obligation and/or professional necessity if we, the community, do not tell them.

 

Ergo, it is not only vital that we use the tools and means provided to us in order to create and sustain the social environments we would like to be surrounded by, but crucial to the quality of our community that we seek to rise above absolute reliance upon those tools in order to resolve our differences in the first place.

 

Terms of common ground are key to such becoming a common and recurring possibility, and so terms of common ground and encouragements towards mutual understanding and open lines of communication must be established and made both visible and referenceable by pretty much anyone.

 

Of equal importance, those terms must be conceivably valuable to pretty much anyone. By definition, however, any selectively inclusive body will also be equally selectively exclusive of that which it does not represent, encourage or tolerate.

 

 

What this initiative will never be and never do is thus as important to lay on the table as all else. It will never be a list of 'Thou Shalt Not" edicts presented with expecations of or demands for obedience.

 

It will never be presented as or intended for use as a means by which to denigrate, devalue, exclude or marginalize any person, playstyle or configuration of social preferences that Bioware's EULA/ToS and Forum regulations do not themselves prohibit and proscribe.

 

It will never be, in its formulation or its intention, a tool of judgement or bias for or against any particular playstyle, person or personal system of moral preferences, again where such things are not themselves in conflict with the EULA/ToS and Forum regulations.

 

 

I would welcome any and all thoughts and ideas, preferably in address of any or all parts of the preliminary project outline's particulars, though also on the idea of such an initiative as well.

 

 

Volunteers that would like to participate in the realization of such a project are welcome to say so and are encouraged to say a bit about what they hope to bring to such an initiative.

 

Not everyone that may wish to participate in a consistent and developmental manner will be able to do so; too many chefs in the kitchen leads to nothing getting done; but all feedback is welcome provided that it remains constructive.

 

Should this initiative develop into an ongoing project, progress notes will be regularly presented to the community at large, as well as key and vital segments of chat logs that really ought to be put forth in invitation to community feedback.

 

This project will not conclude into a finalized document until I and those that assemble in its formation with me are satisfied that it is representative of the wants and needs of the general community, and even in that conclusion will remain open to continued revision and evolution as more and better information becomes available.

 

Thank you for your time, and again, your feedback and input is welcome!

Edited January 27, 2012 by Uruare

[Brosephiine]

Oof, wall of text, will read later when my eyes aren't so heavy with sleepiness. D:

[Bilirubin]

That was the most polite tl;dr I've ever read.

[Uruare]

That was the most polite tl;dr I've ever read.

 

And here I thought I'd done a decent job of reducing a reasonably formal project's infrastructural outline to a single forum post rather than 15-30 pages

 

Beyond my small 'well hrmph' though, if you have feedback on how to reduce it further without diminishing its comprehensive nature, that would be good.

 

If it's TL;DR for you, there are obviously reasons why, and maybe you'd be interested in helping with some feedback with that in mind?

[Brosephiine]

And here I thought I'd done a decent job of reducing a reasonably formal project's infrastructural outline to a single forum post rather than 15-30 pages

 

Beyond my small 'well hrmph' though, if you have feedback on how to reduce it further without diminishing its comprehensive nature, that would be good.

 

If it's TL;DR for you, there are obviously reasons why, and maybe you'd be interested in helping with some feedback with that in mind?

 

I think they were referring to my post, but I honestly was just tired. I logged off and passed out right afterward. xD

[ImperialRebel]

I think you've done a great job outlining the start of what this document would end up looking like in it's final draft. You've very clearly outlined what the focus is aimed at in each section point.

 

I do have some questions and concerns:

 

Q1) Isn't this document going to be the end result of a copy/pasting of the EULA and Forums rules that already discuss these issues; with the exception that the end result is a document that breaks everything down for the common person?

 

Q2) It seems like your going to to consider adding people's 'morality standards' into this project, is that something you should even attempt to include since everyone's morality is subjective and specific to that individual?

 

C1) My major concern is that this isn't going to do anything to calm people's attitudes on this topic and will just start devolving into someone's feelings or emotions getting hurt or agitated.

 

To take on the scope of this project is probably a bad idea, but if the end result is a user-friendly document that people can easily navigate, understand and most importantly, follow the rules, this could be a good thing.

[Uruare]

I think you've done a great job outlining the start of what this document would end up looking like in it's final draft. You've very clearly outlined what the focus is aimed at in each section point.

 

I do have some questions and concerns:

 

I shall endeavor to address them! Thank you, by the way, for tossing a few questions across the matter.

 

 

Q1) Isn't this document going to be the end result of a copy/pasting of the EULA and Forums rules that already discuss these issues; with the exception that the end result is a document that breaks everything down for the common person?

 

Not per the founding intention, no. Nor should it, as there is already an EULA and Forum regulations within easy reach for reference.

 

Instead, the intention of the document would be to present, in a reasonably comprehensive manner, examples of behaviours that many would agree are not conducive to creating a tolerable, let alone generally pleasant, social environment for anybody, as well as suggestions for how one might use both the tools provided to address them (there would be some necessary referencing of the EULA/TOS and Forum regulations for some such things, but only for the purpose of honoring those documentts' superior relevance in some cases; sexual harrasment, as but one potential example).

 

What this document would chiefly focus on would be a lot of that which is grey area and not so neatly proscribed, or necessarily made obvious by the terms of the EULA/TOS or Forum regulations, that can and do recurringly present unnecessary degrees of problem escalation.

 

An example of one such thing might be a section on dispute resolution that would be designed in its content and presentation to invite the reader to consider the availabilities of their tools for social discretion, provide them with what could readily be called tips and (hopefully) helpful suggestions for taking a positive, or at least constructive, approach to both establishing a point or topic as well as discussing or debating it thereafter.

 

The interest therein would not be to preach any manner of dogmatic 'You should always' or 'You should never' absolutes on very much.

 

Rather, it would seem more prudent to at least myself to present people with the tools in a comprehensive manner to better be able to, basically, say something relevant and constructive, even if what they have to say is, in fact, critical and unpleasant in its topical nature.

 

In sum, how to improve the quality of communications in the hope that by so doing, more people will be better able to do so, and fewer will be forced between choosing to tolerate something or absolutely ignore and/or report things that the EULA/TOS and Forum regulations do not specifically cite as being necessary to report on.

 

 

 

Q2) It seems like your going to to consider adding people's 'morality standards' into this project, is that something you should even attempt to include since everyone's morality is subjective and specific to that individual?

 

Its technically impossible to address a topic of values without also, in some manner, representing some manner of moralized position as its context.

 

However, and this one is of absolute importance to myself, the basis I would hold this document in its development to would be the implied standards of ethicality and morality solidified by the EULA/TOS and Forum Regulations.

 

Clearly, there is a certain ethical and (perhaps weakly) implied moral standard engendered in those documents upon their points relevant to this topic, and I for one would not see it as helpful or, indeed, necessary to assume to elaborate upon their basis.

 

Only to elaborate on how to better make use of the tools provided as well as avoid needing to rely upon their use, where such is avoidable.

 

 

 

C1) My major concern is that this isn't going to do anything to calm people's attitudes on this topic and will just start devolving into someone's feelings or emotions getting hurt or agitated.

 

That very manner of thing is a very common hurdle to online communications, particularly in forum environments such as this one, as well as within the in-game environments themselves.

 

My own understanding is that communications often degrade and break down into emotionally injurious back-and-forths of mud-slinging, name-calling and mutual derision when one or more of the involved parties does not feel ackowledged, respected, understood or included.

 

I would not foster or condone in this document's establishment and evolution any terms that presumed to, essentially, judge anybody. That, very particularly, would not be the business nor purpose of this document.

 

It would not be a document by which guilt or innocence upon anything could reasonably be based.

 

To give an example of what one might see the like of in such a document, consider what I understand to be a common variety of dispute that often comes to exist between people of very different playstyles, such as a hardcore raider that has no familiarity with or personal interest in roleplaying, and a roleplayer that has no personal familiarity or interest in hardcore raiding.

 

Could such variegated people with perhaps entirely (or not so entirely?) different motives for playing and valuesfor game matters communicate effectively?

 

It's absolutely useless to tell people "Just get along"; it's another matter entirely to demonstrate a genuine understanding and appreciation for their unique perspectives and offer them communications tools by which to foster better and more constructive communications between themselves.

 

It is equally useless to deliver ultimatums or absolute directives on whata differently motivated and differently value-oriented person must and must not do or think or feel about anything. Such has nowhere to go but towards fostering hostility and generating destructive conflict not only between players in question, but between those sympathetic to either party.

 

Mindset and approach will be more heavily and quite specifically focused on, for my intention upon this document, than anything else.

 

 

 

 

To take on the scope of this project is probably a bad idea, but if the end result is a user-friendly document that people can easily navigate, understand and most importantly, follow the rules, this could be a good thing.

 

 

For my intention with and upon this document, it would be a potentially valuable resource to anybody that's ever wished they couldsay something or ask questions without necessary fear of ubiquitous mockery, or for that matter, iterate their thoughts and state their feelings and position upon a matter from a truly well thought-out and well reasoned position that is not divorced from their feelings upon something, but simply a, dare iI say, civilized and conversational manner.

 

Or for that matter wished they had something they could point people at as an assembly of standards and values-oriented discernment concepts as well as a friendly resource by which to hone communication skills.

 

Ideally, anybody that's ever wanted to say something more effectively and generate constructive input on anything should find such a document to be invaluable for providing the information in plain language manners for applying their own morals and their own personal values usefully, constructively and companionably in this (and quite possibly many) social environment.

 

 

In short and sum, I'd have no interest and would support no endeavor's interests that was basically trying to tell people what to think and what to feel.

 

I would foster, support and help devise an endeavor that put better tools for making their own judgements, and following through on those judgements, in a manner that was better for them unto their own interests and better for the community unto its channels of communication between variegated parties.

 

So, in closing, I would like to again thank you for your questions! If you have any more, please feel welcome to pick the whole thing to absolute pieces and question every tick of it if such suits you.

 

It can do nothing but good for the project's validity in its structure to be refined in such manners, or at least clarified so as to either diepel or possibly confirm points where misunderstanding might elsewise affix themselves.

 

Those sorts of things really are best identified and hashed out while the framework is still a framework and nobody's already hightailing it down the highway in filling that framework with content, I think.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Uruare

[Zilvafein]

I applaud you for your initiative!

 

Big thumps up from me here, and to stress one thing that may cause some friction immediately, as is seen plainly on these forums: The implied attack on another player that does not do so directly.

 

Example:

Server goes down in EU primetime, EU player complaints (wether valid or not, is not the discussion here obviously).

American player goes: Well, its not a big deal. I would suck it up.

 

Implied: "suck it up (loser)" or "your just a whiner".

 

A solution could perhaps be to make EU and US centric subforums for feedback to regional specific issues.

[Uruare]

I applaud you for your initiative!

 

Big thumps up from me here, and to stress one thing that may cause some friction immediately, as is seen plainly on these forums: The implied attack on another player that does not do so directly.

 

Example:

Server goes down in EU primetime, EU player complaints (wether valid or not, is not the discussion here obviously).

American player goes: Well, its not a big deal. I would suck it up.

 

Implied: "suck it up (loser)" or "your just a whiner".

 

A solution could perhaps be to make EU and US centric subforums for feedback to regional specific issues.

 

 

 

That unfortunate "F-you, got mine" sort of mindset certainly suggests a lack of empathy.

 

I don't know that I would go so far as to suppose it suggests a lack of interest in caring what others think or feel, though it could.

 

It can feel very abrasive to be told stuff like that, and dealing constructively with that kind of rudeness and lack of consideration isn't always easy. The invitation to deal with it poorly and throw gas on the waggled match is right there, after all.

 

However, being as that it's come to mind for you in sufficient manner to make a specific example of it, any thoughts on ways to deal with that kind of thing without helping it get uglier to go with it? I'd welcome such input, though you're certainly not obligated to give it if you don't wanna.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Uruare

[Gleneagle]

Humanity is in the process of developing a new cultural medium using the internet and more specifically virtual social environments, and certainly it is a good idea to try and build a corpus of common values everyone can agree to.

 

In any human culture we can expect two minorities to emerge, positive and negative, that fall outside the range of six-sigma norms (we might call them saints and outlaws).

 

How does this project intend to endure the abnormals?

[FleshMauler]

Or I could simply ignore this. Seriously, what is with all these threads that keep appearing that boil down to:

 

"plx be nice on the interwebs <3"

 

Its pleasing when people are nice to each other, but going out of your way to always be nice, positive, and all in all being bland and inoffensive is a pain in the *** in the long run.

 

Other than "Maintain consistency with all EULA/TOS and Forum regulations" all these rules are should be PERSONAL guidelines that each individual chooses (or ignores) for themselves and having a general list of them is silly.

 

This kinda feels like one of those "feel good" internet projects like changing your facebook profile picture to end world hunger. I'd rather have an online community that is entertaining and speaks its mind than people trying to be openmindedly meek, with a

"positive, conversational ambience of dialogue"

 

I got to a restaurant for ambience and food, I don't go to the internet for ambience and community made guidelines.

[Gleneagle]

Being bland and inoffensive isn't, near as I can tell, the objective. Being bland and inoffensive are qualities being asserted to be part of the package when they are not.

 

Any assertion that polity is of arbitrary or even debatable value is markedly skewed. Productivity, for example, is improved when you clear the drama away from the office, hence we have standards of behavior in most offices. Similarly the classroom is more conducive to learning when not disrupted by childish behavior. It can be effectively inferred that if we conduct our conversations here with forethought and consideration for one another's point of view, we may achieve more than we would otherwise.

 

But do we have to accomodate views blindly? If someone's view is destructive to the good of the community should we value and uphold that view equally with one that is productive?

 

No. There are outlaws. There are sophists who will only seek to destroy what others have constructed without contributing anything at all themselves. They know how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create, and if unable to be creative, or unwilling to expose their vulnerable sentiments to critical view, they default to the sense of power destruction brings them.

 

At the same time there are saints, who will be intolerant and make the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

Morality does not appear to be as relative as some might prefer. Rather it is part of our culture's survival mechanism, leading to cooperative behaviors and teamwork. Just as you coordinate with your team in part by affording them a similitude of respect, so too might the larger community function better were we to follow suit.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Gleneagle

[FleshMauler]

But do we have to accomodate views blindly? If someone's view is destructive to the good of the community should we value and uphold that view equally with one that is productive?

 

No one is asking you to accomodate anything. If someone posts a "view" that you disagree with you can either post and tell why you disagree with it in whatever manner you feel approriate (as long as it falls within Bioware's rules), or you can ignore it.

 

Trust me, as someone who was born in the USSR (Soviet Russia), things like

Morality does not appear to be as relative as some might prefer. Rather it is part of our culture's survival mechanism, leading to cooperative behaviors and teamwork.

 

should be a red flag for anyone.

 

At the same time I disagree with the nonsense this thread is trying to establish, but I will in no way disagree your right to try to. I am simply trying to make you wonder, really wonder if there is any point to it other than you imposing things on other people on the internet.

[Gleneagle]

Do you imagine one opinion, whatever it might be, is equal to every other opinion, whatever those might be? What is the use of science? What is the use of reason? Is reason more important than rhetoric?

 

Why do you imagine morality/social ethos arose in the first place? Do you imagine anyone would choose to deny themselves pleasure just for lack of something to do?

 

I'm not sure where you get the imposition element. People agree to a social contract freely, or they exclude themselves freely. The choice is present.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Gleneagle

[Brosephiine]

Or I could simply ignore this. Seriously, what is with all these threads that keep appearing that boil down to:

 

"plx be nice on the interwebs <3"

 

Its pleasing when people are nice to each other, but going out of your way to always be nice, positive, and all in all being bland and inoffensive is a pain in the *** in the long run.

 

Other than "Maintain consistency with all EULA/TOS and Forum regulations" all these rules are should be PERSONAL guidelines that each individual chooses (or ignores) for themselves and having a general list of them is silly.

 

This kinda feels like one of those "feel good" internet projects like changing your facebook profile picture to end world hunger. I'd rather have an online community that is entertaining and speaks its mind than people trying to be openmindedly meek, with a

 

I got to a restaurant for ambience and food, I don't go to the internet for ambience and community made guidelines.

 

This isn't exactly a "be nice" thread, other than we'd like you to be nice IN the thread. It's more of a compilation of thoughts and ideas on how one should conduct themselves in an online public medium. For me, I'd like to know how people expect to act online. What's taboo and what's not. I personally try to conduct myself (publicly) in a tactful manner, even if I'm cursing and being a little perverted. I try to carefully pick my words so as not to offend, or grossly offend anyone. But that's just me.

 

And this is part of your community speaking it's mind right here. Feel free to disagree with posts in here, by all means!

Edited January 29, 2012 by Brosephiine

[FleshMauler]

@ Gleneagle

First of all don't compare people on the internet with (appearantly) nothing better to do (myself included) to a government organization. "Social contract"? Really? Are you trying to make a constitution for the forums of an online game?

 

Btw, in what country could I refuse their social contract "freely"? I beleive doing so is called treason. You could argue that I freely commited treason, but that sounds beyond stupid since because in that cause by simply disagreing with a social contract I never accepted I am charged with treason.

 

*edited in*

No appearantly it wouldn't be treason since I'm up in Canada it would be Sedition as found in the Criminal Code of Canada under section 59. Which leads to 14 years in jail (Section 61).

 

*Also edited in*, @ Brosephiine I am glad you're expresing yourself on the forums and as I said earlier I in no way disagree with your right to do so. Infact I'm happy you're welcoming my critisism.

Edited January 29, 2012 by FleshMauler

[ImperialRebel]

I'm glad there are people out there that understand Bio Ware has it's own rules concerning other people's comments (which mainly apply to the forums. There are conversations elsewhere in the forums where people have chosen to ignore that.

 

What I think was missed, is that this thread is trying to include the entire social experience, not just the forum section, but the in-game content as well (general chat is one such area). There is little in the way of in-game standards, this is significant grey area that this project is hoping to address.

 

What this thread is trying to do (from my understanding. OP can respond if I'm off or not), is educate people on what is and is not conducive behavior to having an intelligent conversation with others, with community addressed feedback and guidelines for areas that the EULA and TOS don't cover, in respect to all social interactions the community is involved in.

 

This is a community project, so it requires community involvement. Similar to how people are elected into office (by the people). The end result of this document should have input from what the community (at large, not the vocal minority) finds socially acceptable behavior, that the grey areas of the EULA and TOS don't clearly define. Think of it as a gamers 'social etiquette' compendium.

 

I agree with you both if you believe that sentiments concerning 'netiquette' are subjective. I think netiquette is subjective to some degree as well because it's based on some level of morality. I keep reminding myself that the end goal of it is ultimately boiling everything down to right and wrong. Remember the age-old adage, 'Treat others as you would like to be Treated'? Ultimately what this thread is trying to do is boil internet behavior (in the game and community) down to what's proper or improper.

 

At the same time I disagree with the nonsense this thread is trying to establish, but I will in no way disagree your right to try to. I am simply trying to make you wonder, really wonder if there is any point to it other than you imposing things on other people on the internet.

 

Again I think the point of this thread was missed. The end goal of this project isn't to enforce any one particular viewpoint or standard on others, as stated above. More importantly I think it shows how necessary it is to educate everyone on what this project is and isn't.

 

@ Fleshmauler: You are completely free to disagree with this which is unfortunate because it doesn't help progress the progression of the project, beyond further explanation of what the project is and isn't.

 

Addressed here:

 

 

What this initiative will never be and never do is thus as important to lay on the table as all else. It will never be a list of 'Thou Shalt Not" edicts presented with expecations of or demands for obedience.

 

It will never be presented as or intended for use as a means by which to denigrate, devalue, exclude or marginalize any person, playstyle or configuration of social preferences that Bioware's EULA/ToS and Forum regulations do not themselves prohibit and proscribe.

 

It will never be, in its formulation or its intention, a tool of judgement or bias for or against any particular playstyle, person or personal system of moral preferences, again where such things are not themselves in conflict with the EULA/ToS and Forum regulations.

 

 

@ Gleneagle: I think you made an excellent point with your opening dialogue but you diluted it completely after:

 

 

But do we have to accomodate views blindly? If someone's view is destructive to the good of the community should we value and uphold that view equally with one that is productive?

 

No. There are outlaws. There are sophists who will only seek to destroy what others have constructed without contributing anything at all themselves. They know how much easier it is to destroy than it is to create, and if unable to be creative, or unwilling to expose their vulnerable sentiments to critical view, they default to the sense of power destruction brings them.

 

At the same time there are saints, who will be intolerant and make the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

Morality does not appear to be as relative as some might prefer. Rather it is part of our culture's survival mechanism, leading to cooperative behaviors and teamwork. Just as you coordinate with your team in part by affording them a similitude of respect, so too might the larger community function better were we to follow suit.

 

Edited January 29, 2012 by ImperialRebel

[Uruare]

Humanity is in the process of developing a new cultural medium using the internet and more specifically virtual social environments, and certainly it is a good idea to try and build a corpus of common values everyone can agree to.

 

In any human culture we can expect two minorities to emerge, positive and negative, that fall outside the range of six-sigma norms (we might call them saints and outlaws).

 

How does this project intend to endure the abnormals?

 

 

Six sigma wouldn't be ideal for assessing distributions on this manner of project's data, no. Frankly, I wouldn't want to exclude it entirely; it could (assuming data accessibility is optimal) perhaps be a great tool for assessing distributions quantitatively once the qualitatives are defined, but I think we'd be playing with fire to attempt to quantize the qualitative terms (Terms we need to define in the form of values-differentiated culture groups) in a manner sigma six could provide relevant distribution variance data upon.

 

 

Honestly, I have no idea at this time what precise model to use for analyzing the data, as the implication of your entirely correct observation extends further than into negative/positive differentials.

 

Or at least it could, and I suspect it will, and I haven't got the foggiest clue what the extent will be on that. And I don't know that I'm entirely comfortable with dictating the analytical model before I can take a good, hard look at just what nature of raw data we might well get as feedback.

 

To do so would necessarily also shape the data acquisition process, and as you pointed out, this is a formative culture.

 

As a bit of an aside, it's somewhat mind-boggling to attempt to discern ideal methodology for how to examine it, how to understand it in a formal, scientific manner and certainly how to define it.

 

A lot of us are going to look like idiots fumbling with this in our lifetimes for trying to find the right models, or invent them in the all-too-likely scenerio that existant models of data acquisition and analysis do not/cannot apply ideally, to understand this genuinely new representation of human social formation/interaction/culturization.

 

I might already be one of them. So, if -you- have any particular insights or ideas on a model to apply at this time, let's discuss!

 

Worst that can happen is we look like idiots and possibly leave crumb trails for ourselves or others after us to follow on making better procedural sense of it than we might at this time.

 

 

As for -enduring- the (probable) abnormals in a more literal sense, I'd highly recommend questioning them politely and trying to get them toexplain why they feel and behave as they do.

 

If they violate the EULA/TOS or forum regulations in so doing, well, that's covered territory. But I'd see no reason to unilaterally oppose them in return.

 

They could, in fact, be valuable resources of information if they could be encouraged to explain why they feel as they do, why they're doing as they're doing, and so on, provided there's any even halfway reasonable grounds to engage in such dialogue with them upon.

 

And if not, or if they simply refuse to participate, I will not and would encourage anyone participating to flag them on grounds of harrasment.

 

Consequences are a vital aspect of socialization. They should not be avoided or undermined in their validity.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Uruare

[Uruare]

No one is asking you to accomodate anything. If someone posts a "view" that you disagree with you can either post and tell why you disagree with it in whatever manner you feel approriate (as long as it falls within Bioware's rules), or you can ignore it.

 

Trust me, as someone who was born in the USSR (Soviet Russia), things like

 

 

should be a red flag for anyone.

 

At the same time I disagree with the nonsense this thread is trying to establish, but I will in no way disagree your right to try to. I am simply trying to make you wonder, really wonder if there is any point to it other than you imposing things on other people on the internet.

 

 

The project's intentions are not to impose anything on anyone; imposition would require and (in this case, quite falsely) presume a position of authority.

 

This project and no one affiliated with it, or affiliated with it from a position of relevant authority, has any authority to impose. To seek otherwise; to intend otherwise; to even construct it to imply otherwise; would, in my mind, be folly, and would defeat its own actual conversationally informative purpose.

 

That purpose, prior stated, remains simple; to create a reference suited to pretty much anybody that would ideally be useful to the purpose of facilitating a higher quality and efficiency standard of communication.

 

I have no idea if we'll succeed. Frankly, I have no idea if this project will pick up steam and get off the ground.

 

What I do know is this: I will not condone or support this initiative as an impositional device. The document I would like to help create would be useless to such end.

 

It would, instead, be more like friendly suggestions with plain-language explanations for the reasoning behind those suggestions, preferably backed with solid information and a lot of thinking on the parts of as many as can feasibly be included in the process.

 

Whether anyone would use it or not or find it valuable or not if this project succeeds in creating such a document to the high standard of relevance and fidelity of procedural formation, I dunno.

 

Again, whether we will even succeed in arriving at such a document, I can't know yet.

 

I would, never the less, like to try. At worst; at absolute worst; I fail and perhaps look like an idiot.

 

At best, I help create a document that is valid and potentially of great use to just about anybody in an MMO social environment that, if used as a reference, could go a long way in fostering better relations, better communications and better understanding between values-differentiated subcultures.

 

But bludgeoning anyone from a position of authority? Creating such a document to even be al that useful to such pursuits in the hands of others? No.

 

I'll be very specifically avoiding that, to be as plain as I can on the matter. And if it should seem as though I am helping to create a potential weapon of that variety, I -WILL- scrap the project, and I -WILL- wash my hands of it completely.

 

I can give you nothing but my word on that. Here on the internet, one's word tends to mean exactly nothing, but it is literally all I have. I can't post pics or video; it hasn't happened yet.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Uruare

[Gleneagle]

Six sigma wouldn't be ideal for assessing distributions on this manner of project's data, no. ...

 

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the six sigmas are only the three standard deviations on either side of the mean. Six sigma is independent of Lean Six theory, though the latter does lean heavily on the concept. I was not trying to drag in a 'Lean Six' business analysis into a discussion of social norms.

 

In this context it makes sense that there will always be those who vary and those who deviate outside the six sigmas, which can be thought the range of 'normal' distribution.

 

It was a manner of speaking: we do not, as far as I know, have the means to perform quantitative analysis.

 

I could have simply said 'normal', but I didn't want to imply that outlaws and saints are 'abnormal'. Call me yellow, but it seemed to me offensive to set it up that way. By trying to typify it with the six sigmas I also hoped to get away from 'deviation' as well, due to negative connotations there.

[Gleneagle]

...

A lot of us are going to look like idiots fumbling with this in our lifetimes for trying to find the right models, or invent them in the all-too-likely scenerio that existant models of data acquisition and analysis do not/cannot apply ideally, to understand this genuinely new representation of human social formation/interaction/culturization.

...

 

I can think of other situations where the wisest must have felt fools attempting what had never before been done, and to those fools Civilization owes debts we can never hope to pay. Better to have tried, for at least we will have tried, than to allow heartless evolution to eventually do it for us.

 

It will happen. How it happens may be up to us. If not us, then those who follow. Others have tried before. But if we make only one faltering step, that step need never again intimidate those who follow.

 

For it is a large thing we contemplate. And due.

 

...and maybe, were it to pass that the community comes and leaves their mark, their vote, their thoughts, maybe you or another of us will present our cogent expression to TED.

[Uruare]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the six sigmas are only the three standard deviations on either side of the mean. Six sigma is independent of Lean Six theory, though the latter does lean heavily on the concept. I was not trying to drag in a 'Lean Six' business analysis into a discussion of social norms.

 

Correct. The problem I'd foresee as probable with six sigma or a lean six application would be in quantizing the abstracts. My biggest concern in applying either would be in what they would exclude, as they're really not the best models to apply to matters wherein which econometric math isn't a locus of consideration.

 

Here's the distillation of my prior-stated concern: How do we represent the factors, in this case values-differentiated cultural groupings, in a six sigma format? Moreover, how do we avoid biasing the process of identifying and defining those as-yet-nebulous cultural groupings if we pre-determine ourselves to do so in a manner conducive to six sigma's method of representing those deviations?

 

Giving consideration in the structuring of a six sigma model for use, it could incorporate elements of Mazlow's necessity hierarchy as points of variation perhaps.

 

Now you've got me wondering if the Rasch model under an EfS structure hybridized with the Six sigma representation could work.

 

Also, I'm not looking to bludgeon anybody with such terms of references; if anybody would like to know what the bleeping bleep Gleneagle and I are talking about, please feel free to ask! It's all fairly easily explainable in conceptualy comprehensive terms, and I don't think either of us are interested in intellectually excluding anyone from the discourse.

 

 

 

In this context it makes sense that there will always be those who vary and those who deviate outside the six sigmas, which can be thought the range of 'normal' distribution.

 

It was a manner of speaking: we do not, as far as I know, have the means to perform quantitative analysis.

 

Best we'd be able to do is quantitatively analyze what we do have/may yet acquire access to. If there would be any valid purpose to doing so anyway.

 

Frankly, I think it'd tally up to a lot of pseudoscience at best if we tried, and an appropriately designed study to enable it to be otherwise on such fronts would almost certainly require involvement with Bioware/EA at various levels.

 

Permission to solicit the playerbase with formal study questionairres and access to certain sections of customer service data would probably only be a good start, and that's already crossing into enormously improbable territory.

 

Though I wonder if a formal study through a legitimate channel could gain traction. Curiosity is piqued. Colleagues are good for things, like answering bizarre questions at strange hours of the morning, right?

 

 

 

I could have simply said 'normal', but I didn't want to imply that outlaws and saints are 'abnormal'. Call me yellow, but it seemed to me offensive to set it up that way. By trying to typify it with the six sigmas I also hoped to get away from 'deviation' as well, due to negative connotations there.

 

 

Gotcha. I see what you were kind've painting around there then.

 

In light of all said and in fairly abundant obviation, I don't know that, as you pointed out, we'd have the resources to make a valid study useage out of six sigma's model in the first place.

 

But then, it doesn't have to be something we're polishing for presentation to a peer review either. Helpful and informative can well come from the arm of the cozy-chair, and I'd suspect we can do what we can and at least try for the highest standard of scientific validity as that we can manage with the data we acquire.

 

If nothing else, it'd make for good transparency and evidence of what the attempt is attempting, and how, and maybe some of why somewhere in all the heuristics.

 

Though now I wonder how much would be too much for the concerns of the everyman.

 

I'm not sure how many would find that degree of documentation informative or just plain strange and offputting.

 

Maybe some of those here can chime in and tell us? I suspect Gleneagle and I are both biased. Probably geeks. Likely to read "Quality & Quantity" journals in the bathroom.

 

/voodoo fingers!

Edited January 30, 2012 by Uruare

[Gleneagle]

Certainly biased here, and unrepresentative of the behavioral/cultural mean. Age, you know. I'm a product of the 1950s.

 

Still, there are other approaches than LSS we should not overlook. We should have an array of possible methods if we hope to select a sensible approach.

 

Archeology comes to mind. There are artifacts in the public record that people have posted here and elsewhen. Google is a tool. I recall relevant conversations on USENET back in the day: there is surely a motherload of material to be mined if, as you pointed out, we can identify appropriate categories and search terms.

 

Dump the results into a database and discover how many times certain phrases occur? Hate to be the guy trying to manually collate all that. Inhuman reading schedule.

 

I know very well we are not the first to have considered the question of human cultural evolution in the electronic media.

 

Stumbling hazard noticed: Recommend principles of ethics/morality must be able to stand independent of any organized religion, and not contradict any.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Gleneagle

[Uruare]

Certainly biased here, and unrepresentative of the behavioral/cultural mean. Age, you know. I'm a product of the 1950s.

 

Child of the 80's, myself. I'll very much look forward to continued dialogue with you, Gleneagle. If you'll forgive the bias, I've a lot of personal respect for older, typically more experienced heads then mine. They always manage to teach me things.

 

Sometimes that I was right to stick to my guns on something, and sometimes that being a comparatively young hothead is its own drawback.

 

 

Still, there are other approaches than LSS we should not overlook. We should have an array of possible methods if we hope to select a sensible approach.

 

Agreed. No reason we couldn't equally consider a more general heuristic. While I have no interest in resurrecting the quantiative/qualitative debate in this thread, I'm definitely leaning in favor of the qualitative approach.

 

I dont' think we'll have or be able to acquire access to enough relevant raw data to do more than embarass ourselves with an attempt at a proper quantitative structuring on a lot. Though I do think it would be a good thing to strive for where we can.

 

There's also the matter of that I'm predisposing myself to a macrosociological perspective in the whole matter. I think it to be the ideal perspective to work from in address of social/cultural groupings since, in my mind, that's a leading component of my own grasp of the matter's context...but it could be elsewise.

 

Behaviours; the substance of what most of the intended document would be citing, defining and providing comprehensive suggestions for address of; could be the focus.

 

Hmm. Outside-in or inside-out. Taking the macro road, explanations could get quite lengthy to draw plain-language correlations (and justify them with explanations at how they were arrived at) and present them.

 

Taking the micro road, it might be a little too easy to wind up making an appeal to faith in our judgement by providing inadequate connecting and explanatory substance.

 

Brainstorm is brainstormy; what do you think, Gleneagle? For that matter, what does anyone wishing to comment think to be a better starting point to look at data acquisition and interpretation from?

 

 

 

Archeology comes to mind. There are artifacts in the public record that people have posted here and elsewhen. Google is a tool. I recall relevant conversations on USENET back in the day: there is surely a motherload of material to be mined if, as you pointed out, we can identify appropriate categories and search terms.

 

Very true. And I'll readily acknowledge that it hadn't yet occurred to me to dig that far back, though doing so would be both a really good idea and comprehensively necessary for a genuinely full-on look at the evolution of where it arguably began to where we're at today.

 

Scope and scale of project: Getting fuzzy. Curiosity's definitely piqued.

 

Brings to mind the notion that we might want to establish some parameters of the project. In light of how easily it could turn into the sort of thing requiring manpower and data access, not to mention expertise from numerous fields and schools therein, of frightful proportions, this...seems...prudent to do.

 

For the sake of discussion though, I think anything's fair game.

 

For the consideration of the project at hand, I'd suggest we focus on that which could be presumed (subject to debate) as being of immediate relevance to the intention of the project's goal. Chiefly, that which helps us define values-differentiated groupings as they are now as well as means by which to foster better communications and heightened understanding between them.

 

I couldn't, if pressed, formulate a good argument for how the absolute best way to do that would be anything other than engaging in a massive study of where it's all come from and what it's been and how it got to be as it is no matter the infeasibility of engaging in that study even were it to be adequately and validly structured.

 

I do not, and probably never will, regard "because it's too bloody expensive and would require too many people" as a good argument; merely a concession to unfortunate facts.

 

 

 

Dump the results into a database and discover how many times certain phrases occur? Hate to be the guy trying to manually collate all that. Inhuman reading schedule.

 

I know very well we are not the first to have considered the question of human cultural evolution in the electronic media.

 

Indeed not. It's a topic of great interest to many of my colleagues, and probably even moreso to those that actually work in fields more specifically concerned with digital culture/'the internet'.

 

We could phrase track for some quantitative bearing, but what phrases, and to what purpose? Phrases such as 'troll', 'noob', 'fail', the whole morass of memetics lingual and visual alike and...

 

...Well, I just blew my own mind yet again on trying to tally up even a short list of things we'd do really well, in the general pursuit, to take long, hard, comprehensively-minded looks at.

 

Project parameters: they exist to keep you from blowing your own mind fifteen times a day as much as for efficiency-oriented purposes. Intended consequence or conveniently beneficient byproduct?

 

 

 

Stumbling hazard noticed: Recommend principles of ethics/morality must be able to stand independent of any organized religion, and not contradict any.

 

Entirely agreed. This, at least, I have a wealth of familiarity with as a biasing principle to avoid as a matter of habitualized requirement to do my RL job.

 

Something we're going to have to do on this front, probably in excess of my prior-stated intention of using the EULA/ToS and Forum Regulations as the basis for ethical and implied-moral reasoning, is elaborate on whatever system of reasoning we are going to employ in any orientation of values.

 

And I think we'd do very well to get that done as a preliminary concern, do it clearly and do it openly, in excess of what principles and comprehensive contexts we'll not be using as object references.

 

Religions are right out. Components of religion conceptually shared in excess of religious concern (concepts such as faith and belief in particular), we should be very clear and very precise in how we use them and the contexts in which they are used.

 

And if it needs saying, we should avoid using religious identification as a component of any quantitative measurement systems we devise upon and stick as best we can to more emotionally neutral (I use the implication perilously) components, and in manners exclusive of biasing reference for or against any religion.

 

Thoughts on that and my thinking therein, folks?

[Gleneagle]

I am attracted to the idea of psychological heuristics but, like mythic-scale archetypes, they may be too wrapped up with things religious to take us very far.

 

By 'psychological heuristics' I intend traits and behaviors nearly (or possibly actually) hard-coded byevolution. Still it would provide a way to begin behavioral categorization.

 

Or...hmmm... to throw a dart at it, would the archetypes of the Bartles test (achiever, explorer, etc.) be a place to begin?

 

You know really we should find a Doctorial candidate to do the work for us.

 

For now I will sleep, and then work. Perhaps we'll find a thought or two worth sharing.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Gleneagle