In Dibbell's "A Rape In Cyberspace", we see a group of people (including the author as "Dr. Bombay") from all around the world in text chat with each other in LambdaMOO. They are scattered throughout different rooms of a "mansion", where groups meet to socialize. There are newbies and the more advanced, longer users of the LambdaMOO chat. The community has no set-down rules to follow, but they are a civilized group. Enter Mr. Bungle! Determined to be a sociopath by the group, Mr. Bungle used a subprogram, his "voodoo doll", to send an unwanted message to the character (and of course, RL person) exu that stated to shove something up somewhere that didn't go there. Exu, of course, was not happy about this and wanted Mr. Bungle gone from any existence, RL or VR. Discussions, including a final very long one between 30 group members in the living room, eventually saw it that, since there were no rules, and the wizards could only act on a unanimous group decision to oust Bungle, the violator could not be punished by toading. That's when one of the wizards, Tom Traceback, acted on his own, and toaded the VR criminal.
A main argument made by Dibbell in this article asks how we are to punish someone in an online community if there are no fore-made rules present and not everyone agrees that would be the option to use. We don't always know the intent of the perpetrator; if what was said was a joke or some act-in-the-future threat. It might have been some child at his brother's computer. It might possibly have been someone very normal, such as an attorney or policeman, that was feeling suicidal or was very drunk and happened to type the first angry thoughts that came to mind. Traceback certainly had the power in his grip to rid the living room (and the other rooms for that matter) of Bungle. Was there enough evidence in the group of minds, and not just in Traceback's mind, to rid LambdaMOO of this awful one-time offender? Dibbell seems to argue a point that Mr. Bungle needed to be talked to more to find out why he said what he did. Dibbell (Dr. Bombay) kept trying to locate him to talk, but to no avail. He came back as Dr. Jest, but soon disappeared. Dr. Bombay knew Dr. Jest had come back as a calmer, less troublesome Bungle, but had the group was cautious.
What the group had to deal with was how to punish something like this, with no group rules assigned. A New Direction was going to be formed that put the group, not the wizards, in charge of toaded members. But, without the rules, what could they do? The group did go into the New Direction, only after laws were made, and petitions and ballots formed into existence. There was now a chain of command, that gave the group power to control another occurrence of a bad situation.
This article shows us that we do need online community rules (as we have RL community rules), as well as a set of punishments, that all can agree on. It's easier said than done. We must protect everyone in the various communities (RL or VR) by whatever means necessary. But we cannot judge, by one offense, if someone if a sicko or just a jokester. It could very well be, in this case, a group of college kids at a computer telling one what to type. Eventually someone has to answer in some way for the crime, as the one student did by himself. However, if there are no rules present at the time, what crime did Mr. Bungle really perform. I would say a crime of ignorance. Be it that or some other definition of the crime, we really cannot punish if there is not set of bylaws and punishment. If there are rules and regulations set forth in a VR community, and they are broken by someone, then a first offense (especially if very bad and immoral) should and will most likely be deemed punishable by banning the member. This is something almost all, if not all, the group members will agree on. Then there shall be no question.
I have been part of an online Pro Wrestling community since 2001, about 3 months after the group formed. The group, by the time I joined, had recently came up with a group of rules to be adhered to by all group members. If anyone came along and broke rules, s(he) was given a warning (depending on the severity of the offense). The second time that member broke ANY rule, they were immediately banned permanently from the group (until they got a new internet account). One such member (cannot remember his avatar or screenname) that had used profanity in the group (F**K so and so wrestlers) for a week was then given a warning. He deserved the warning. He didn't break any listed rules after that. However, he started posting non-wrestling pictures (such as movie stars and the such) and got completely banned. He was given no warning at all. He was gone that day! I had chatted with this guy off and on through a couple months after his warning. He was a good guy that made sure he didn't piss off the moderators any longer. When he posted the non-wrestling pictures, there was, at that time, no rule posted in the group against it. I had his email, so I emailed him after the permanent ban, and asked him what he thought. He felt, like most of the group, that he was treated unfairly. There was no rule against posting non-wrestling pictures. He felt he was just a target for the moderators from when he cursed alot of the wrestlers. I honestly have to feel the same way about it. He was a target. The moderator wanted him banned and was waiting for any little thing he did to ban him. I feel this relates to Tom Traceback, as Tom was lingering in the room and felt he heard what he needed to know, albeit not as a group consensus. Tom Traceback wanted to ban (toad) Bungle for good, somewhat based on his own bias towards Bungle. Back to the wrestling group and the no-rules time of LambdaMOO. Most of us in the wrestling community felt, like those that argued a little favorably for Mr. Bungle to stay, that since there was not the listed rule, the wrestling group member should never have been banned. Should Mr. Bungle and the wrestling group member have been warned, oh definitely. Without doubt. You don't send out messages about someone sticking a knife in their posterior to people, nor do you post anything but wrestling pictures in a wrestling community. However, if a group does not condone these actions, and for the better agreement by the entire community on punishment if one digresses from the rules, a list of rules and bylaws needs to be put into place. Do not punish until one knowingly breaks an established set of rules that (s)he knows about.
Works Cited
Dibbell, Julian. "A Rape In Cyberspace." The Village Voice. 21 December 1993.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Turkle - "From Powerful Ideas to PowerPoint" (DTC 475)
I read Sherry Turkle's article, "From Powerful Ideas to PowerPoint" http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_From%20powerful%20ideas%20to%20powerpoint.pdf .
In her article, Turkle explains how people playing simulation (and other) games and not knowing the structure and programming behind them and those using powerpoint aren't experiencing all that they ought to be.
First of all, Turkle believes that people, especially children and teenagers, should know more about what happens beyond the screen in simulation and learning games. The "real stuff" is in the algorithms and programming code used in making these games. It's alright if a child or adult just "plays" the game for the heck of it, but it would be better if they knew why certain actions of the game occue and about how algorithms control aspects of each game. Children are not being taught this in the standard classrooms these days. As Turkle believes; children should be taught about the "depth and mechanism" of games, rather than just the exploration of the "world of shifting surfaces".
Turkle doesn't completely agree with PowerPoint as well. She likes the idea that children use PowerPoint at school as their parents use it at work. She states that children like the idea of using an "adult" computer tool. Turkle also states that PowerPoint helps students "organise their thoughts more effectively" in schoolwork. However, Turkle believes that PowerPoint has its flaws as well. It does not encourage arguments in material by children, which is very important for most adults to grasp onto. Also, PowerPoint lessens conversation with their presentations, because everything is already laid out on slides. Students make points that are told right there with "absolute authority" in the presentation(s) for the others to read and take notes on. Rarely does a child question what is in the PowerPoint presentation, so arguments and debates, whether pro or con about the material, are lacking.
I found Turkle's argument about children and how they should understand games and other software beyond the screen the most interesting in this article. I personally agree with Sherry Turkle on this. Children get too much into "just playing" games and not understanding why the games and their characters operate or act like they do. Children need to know more about the computer models and how things work with computers. Computers are more than looking at a monitor. There is much "beneath the surface".
In her article, Turkle explains how people playing simulation (and other) games and not knowing the structure and programming behind them and those using powerpoint aren't experiencing all that they ought to be.
First of all, Turkle believes that people, especially children and teenagers, should know more about what happens beyond the screen in simulation and learning games. The "real stuff" is in the algorithms and programming code used in making these games. It's alright if a child or adult just "plays" the game for the heck of it, but it would be better if they knew why certain actions of the game occue and about how algorithms control aspects of each game. Children are not being taught this in the standard classrooms these days. As Turkle believes; children should be taught about the "depth and mechanism" of games, rather than just the exploration of the "world of shifting surfaces".
Turkle doesn't completely agree with PowerPoint as well. She likes the idea that children use PowerPoint at school as their parents use it at work. She states that children like the idea of using an "adult" computer tool. Turkle also states that PowerPoint helps students "organise their thoughts more effectively" in schoolwork. However, Turkle believes that PowerPoint has its flaws as well. It does not encourage arguments in material by children, which is very important for most adults to grasp onto. Also, PowerPoint lessens conversation with their presentations, because everything is already laid out on slides. Students make points that are told right there with "absolute authority" in the presentation(s) for the others to read and take notes on. Rarely does a child question what is in the PowerPoint presentation, so arguments and debates, whether pro or con about the material, are lacking.
I found Turkle's argument about children and how they should understand games and other software beyond the screen the most interesting in this article. I personally agree with Sherry Turkle on this. Children get too much into "just playing" games and not understanding why the games and their characters operate or act like they do. Children need to know more about the computer models and how things work with computers. Computers are more than looking at a monitor. There is much "beneath the surface".
Friday, February 12, 2010
Social Optics of Race - DTC 475
I saw "The Matrix" a long time ago (didn't see the sequels) and I haven't seen "Minority Report", so I found Nakamura's chapter 3 very interesting when she talked about the details of the movies. I couldn't remember "The Matrix" very much. I am going to rent "Minority Report" soon! I was deciding between 3 arguments for a while. I decided I was most interested and compelled about the passage that starts with the first paragraph on page 112 and ends after the first paragraph of page 113. Nakamura describes blackness (the dancing, dreadlocks, etc.) as cool. She describes whites as not being able to feel the "visual vibes" that blacks can feel when it comes to their dancing, styles, and "fashion flair". An example of this is how Apple's IPod uses the black silhouette to represent the "cool" black man (or woman) to show their product is "in" or "cool" for marketing purposes. This definitely has worked for the Apple company in sales of their IPods. They have "capitalized on cool". Some movies are capitalizing on cool as well. Nakamura explains how "The Matrix", with the cool black guy, became popular partly because of the "cool" black guy in it. There is a scene (rave) in the movie that shows how black bodies (forms) are cool because they are "sexually-driven" and the blacks move to the rhythm and beat of the music being played.
As (Donnell) Alexander states in his essay, "Cool Like Me (Are Black People Cooler than White People?)," blacks possess a cool style that whites and everyone in the world could learn from. Blacks, as Alexander says, remain in the "American cultural mix" because of their cool ways.
I have seen a few movies (that I can think of) where the black character is in control of things and very cool, and the white actor sort of follows along and doesn't seem as cool. "Pulp Fiction", "Half-Baked", and "Beverly Hills Cop" are movies that come to mind to support this certain Nakamura argument. Each of these movies has a very cool black guy (Samuel Jackson, Dave Chappelle, and Eddie Murphy, respectively with the listed movies) and one or more less-cool white guys that "follow" the black guy along on different missions. In "Pulp Fiction", Jackson is a very cool and tough black guy that gets things taken care of. He has the cool afro, style, and stereotype that Nakamura discusses of cool blacks. Travolta, the white guy, is very active too, but Jackson seems to be more in control. "Half-Baked" follows a few guys that try to get their buddy out of jail. Dave Chappelle seems to be the one that has the best ideas and takes most control (despite smoking weed here and there). The white guys (Jim Breuer and others) smoke more weed and are lazier than Chappelle. Chappelle is the guy, basically, that steals the show and makes it more "cool" to the younger crowd. Finally, Eddie Murphy steals the show from his white counterparts in "Beverly Hills Cop". He is very tough and aggressive, besides being cool, funny, fashionable, and suave. I honestly don't think there's a white actor out there that could have performed Murphy's role as well. That black style that Nakamura (as well as Alexander) discusses is clarified well by Murphy.
In each of these movies, in summary, the black guy is the main actor (most would think so in the mentioned titles), he is stylish, strong, full of determination, and just outright cool. The main white actors in these movies just don't quite have the style, sexuality, and "fashion flair" that the black actors have. The white actors goof around and are not as focused on their certain missions in the movies as the "cool" black actors. In short, the blacks are "in" with the movie-watchers more than their white counterparts.
As (Donnell) Alexander states in his essay, "Cool Like Me (Are Black People Cooler than White People?)," blacks possess a cool style that whites and everyone in the world could learn from. Blacks, as Alexander says, remain in the "American cultural mix" because of their cool ways.
I have seen a few movies (that I can think of) where the black character is in control of things and very cool, and the white actor sort of follows along and doesn't seem as cool. "Pulp Fiction", "Half-Baked", and "Beverly Hills Cop" are movies that come to mind to support this certain Nakamura argument. Each of these movies has a very cool black guy (Samuel Jackson, Dave Chappelle, and Eddie Murphy, respectively with the listed movies) and one or more less-cool white guys that "follow" the black guy along on different missions. In "Pulp Fiction", Jackson is a very cool and tough black guy that gets things taken care of. He has the cool afro, style, and stereotype that Nakamura discusses of cool blacks. Travolta, the white guy, is very active too, but Jackson seems to be more in control. "Half-Baked" follows a few guys that try to get their buddy out of jail. Dave Chappelle seems to be the one that has the best ideas and takes most control (despite smoking weed here and there). The white guys (Jim Breuer and others) smoke more weed and are lazier than Chappelle. Chappelle is the guy, basically, that steals the show and makes it more "cool" to the younger crowd. Finally, Eddie Murphy steals the show from his white counterparts in "Beverly Hills Cop". He is very tough and aggressive, besides being cool, funny, fashionable, and suave. I honestly don't think there's a white actor out there that could have performed Murphy's role as well. That black style that Nakamura (as well as Alexander) discusses is clarified well by Murphy.
In each of these movies, in summary, the black guy is the main actor (most would think so in the mentioned titles), he is stylish, strong, full of determination, and just outright cool. The main white actors in these movies just don't quite have the style, sexuality, and "fashion flair" that the black actors have. The white actors goof around and are not as focused on their certain missions in the movies as the "cool" black actors. In short, the blacks are "in" with the movie-watchers more than their white counterparts.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Manovich: "Friendly Alien"
I read Lev Manovich's article, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface" [1]. I found it somewhat interesting. In the article, Manovich describes how objects and interfaces do not always complement one another, yet we need to continue that trend. The interface is usually thought of as an "alien" but it can be a "friendly alien" if the interface is more "together" with the right object. He describes paintings by Miltos Manetas that have changed over the years. Lev describes the Manetas paintings, in the 1990s, as reflecting a more foreign and unknown "alien", with the computer cables and such running around with no control. Since 1996, however, the paintings now portray more contemporary life and what this newer life has to offer in more familiar settings. The human-computer interface is not so gray and scary anymore.
I believe what Manovich is stating in this article is that interfaces are a fun and inviting "party", but should not be fashioned and designed like they are currently being done. These interfaces of computers (i.e., PSP, cellphones, etc.) should maintain the same design as to what is being seen on the computer interface. That is, the design right around the interface should have something to do with what is going on "in" the interface itself. Otherwise, the user of the interface loses the continuity of the going-on's inside the interface. Manovich states that the physical form on which the interface appears should and must be able to fit together and "accomodate" one another. We are used to interfaces being flat, so the surfaces or objects that the interface is placed on should be flat. Manovich agrees that it is not easy to find an interface-object that could unify perfectly. We, as users and creators, need to be very imaginative to come up with these better-fitting object-interface devices and apparel.
I found a couple descriptions of object-interface creations in Manovich's article to be very interesting. First, he describes his visit to a famous Collette store in Paris in 2005. In this store, he sees the "latest cell phones, PDSs and a portable SONY Playstation" at the entrance, instead of the usual perfumes, albums, and such. Those had been moved to around the perimeter of that store. The reason that these technological "jewels" had been placed in the most important spot in the store (the entrance) was because they are now "fashionable objects" to have and use in this day and age just like perfume and purses that formerly occupied the front entrance. The other part of this article that interested me greatly involved Lev's visit to a student technology show in the Netherlands in 2005. The show featured many "smart objects" which I personally had no idea existed. These solid and "smart" objects with interfaces included a special mirror that had a built-in block in the frame. You take the block out to record a video message, then you put the block back in the mirror frame. The recorded video is then "loaded" up. You then click on a picture that shows up on the mirror, and the video message plays on (inside) the mirror! I thought that was way cool! Another object-interface invention that I thought was very unique from the technology show was a vertical column that had lights in it. This column had a unique interface: a net. All aspects (position, tint, and quality) of the lights change depending on just how you touch this net interface. You never know how the light will change, and this creates a "festive party" in itself. What fun that would be to have in your house as an icebreaker, eh?
Manovich concludes that, with these "smart objects" as examples of what the future holds in the object-interface world, the object surface can present itself as an input or output form of information that will continue to surprise people. This tells us that the new object-interface creations that come along will still be "aliens" but should be "friendly aliens" compared to the pre-technology era.
[1] Lev Manovich, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface". 2006. http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc .
I believe what Manovich is stating in this article is that interfaces are a fun and inviting "party", but should not be fashioned and designed like they are currently being done. These interfaces of computers (i.e., PSP, cellphones, etc.) should maintain the same design as to what is being seen on the computer interface. That is, the design right around the interface should have something to do with what is going on "in" the interface itself. Otherwise, the user of the interface loses the continuity of the going-on's inside the interface. Manovich states that the physical form on which the interface appears should and must be able to fit together and "accomodate" one another. We are used to interfaces being flat, so the surfaces or objects that the interface is placed on should be flat. Manovich agrees that it is not easy to find an interface-object that could unify perfectly. We, as users and creators, need to be very imaginative to come up with these better-fitting object-interface devices and apparel.
I found a couple descriptions of object-interface creations in Manovich's article to be very interesting. First, he describes his visit to a famous Collette store in Paris in 2005. In this store, he sees the "latest cell phones, PDSs and a portable SONY Playstation" at the entrance, instead of the usual perfumes, albums, and such. Those had been moved to around the perimeter of that store. The reason that these technological "jewels" had been placed in the most important spot in the store (the entrance) was because they are now "fashionable objects" to have and use in this day and age just like perfume and purses that formerly occupied the front entrance. The other part of this article that interested me greatly involved Lev's visit to a student technology show in the Netherlands in 2005. The show featured many "smart objects" which I personally had no idea existed. These solid and "smart" objects with interfaces included a special mirror that had a built-in block in the frame. You take the block out to record a video message, then you put the block back in the mirror frame. The recorded video is then "loaded" up. You then click on a picture that shows up on the mirror, and the video message plays on (inside) the mirror! I thought that was way cool! Another object-interface invention that I thought was very unique from the technology show was a vertical column that had lights in it. This column had a unique interface: a net. All aspects (position, tint, and quality) of the lights change depending on just how you touch this net interface. You never know how the light will change, and this creates a "festive party" in itself. What fun that would be to have in your house as an icebreaker, eh?
Manovich concludes that, with these "smart objects" as examples of what the future holds in the object-interface world, the object surface can present itself as an input or output form of information that will continue to surprise people. This tells us that the new object-interface creations that come along will still be "aliens" but should be "friendly aliens" compared to the pre-technology era.
[1] Lev Manovich, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface". 2006. http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc .
TO MY TEAM MANOVICH! =)
HI ALL!!!
Great team we had today in class!! Good to see you all face-to-face! Great discussion.
Here is a list I found of good Manovich articles to choose from for the blog due tomorrow:
http://www.manovich.net/TEXTS_07.HTM
**** I have chosen to blog about one of Manovich's 2006 article, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface"
Here is the link if you're interested in reading it: http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc
Thanks everyone - Good luck! =)
Great team we had today in class!! Good to see you all face-to-face! Great discussion.
Here is a list I found of good Manovich articles to choose from for the blog due tomorrow:
http://www.manovich.net/TEXTS_07.HTM
**** I have chosen to blog about one of Manovich's 2006 article, "Friendly Alien: Object and Interface"
Here is the link if you're interested in reading it: http://www.manovich.net/DOCS/friendly_alien.doc
Thanks everyone - Good luck! =)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
