Forgot your password?
Cyhist Jun 07 1997 B
Document Actions
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 16:29:32 -0500
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: ted byfield <monk@MATERIALMEDIA.COM>
Subject: Re: [archiving MUDs/MOOs]
In-Reply-To: <9706071502.AA26080@precipice.com> Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Andrew Curry <andrew@RICHFORD.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote re Digest 22-23 May 1997:
>My colleague Kate Stables at the British Film Institute wonders about how MUDs and MOOs might be archived to provide a historical record for later researchers. On the face of it it seems to be a problem because of their dynamic and social nature. If it is possible, the BFI may be interested in fincing ways of funding some such archiving. Is anyone on the Cyhist list aware of successful attempts elsewhere to archive multi- user games - and if so, what the limits of the possible are?
I'd think that in this context that "possible" might mean many things. The simplest meaning would of course be technically feasible, which it certainly is--but what exactly do they want to archive? From the day a MUD or MOO "opens its doors," as it were, the range of activities that transpire is incredibly broad and is *not* reducible just to the real- time interactions between "players." For example, the process by which people learn to build personae, objects, and environments is a primary basis for social interactions and--less obviously but more importantly --a solitary activity, a *very* involved and self-consciously creative activity. This introduces a standard problem of the historian's craft: does one focus on the "event" (say, the "opening" of an area months in the making) or on the ephemeral processes that went into its creation, which--in this context--may be collaborative and/or performed offline. It's very tempting to assume that a MUD or MOO is a "society on a hard drive," but doing so fails to account for this off/online distinction, as well other important factors: acquaintance between players on MUD X which may spill over onto its offspring, MUD Y, or between players who go to MUD gatherings. Chances are, these familiarities will correspond to "wizzes," i.e., maintainers--and, as such, could be quite decisive. And then, of course, there's the murky range of issues associated with MUD/MOO "propriety"--confessional intimacies, sexual trysts, and so on --which almost invariably are "solved" with policies imposing a burden of respect for private and public areas (and then, in a further cycle, imposing a burden of "relative" respect--adult or "semipublic" areas). An archive that documented *everything* would dampen or alter people's behavior, whereas an archive that didn't...well, where do you draw the line and why, and how do you substantiate the validity of that choice? Perhaps all of this was on your mind when you mentioned "their dynamic and social nature"; it certainly doesn't answer your question, though.
Ted
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: ted byfield <monk@MATERIALMEDIA.COM>
Subject: Re: [archiving MUDs/MOOs]
In-Reply-To: <9706071502.AA26080@precipice.com> Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
Andrew Curry <andrew@RICHFORD.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote re Digest 22-23 May 1997:
>My colleague Kate Stables at the British Film Institute wonders about how MUDs and MOOs might be archived to provide a historical record for later researchers. On the face of it it seems to be a problem because of their dynamic and social nature. If it is possible, the BFI may be interested in fincing ways of funding some such archiving. Is anyone on the Cyhist list aware of successful attempts elsewhere to archive multi- user games - and if so, what the limits of the possible are?
I'd think that in this context that "possible" might mean many things. The simplest meaning would of course be technically feasible, which it certainly is--but what exactly do they want to archive? From the day a MUD or MOO "opens its doors," as it were, the range of activities that transpire is incredibly broad and is *not* reducible just to the real- time interactions between "players." For example, the process by which people learn to build personae, objects, and environments is a primary basis for social interactions and--less obviously but more importantly --a solitary activity, a *very* involved and self-consciously creative activity. This introduces a standard problem of the historian's craft: does one focus on the "event" (say, the "opening" of an area months in the making) or on the ephemeral processes that went into its creation, which--in this context--may be collaborative and/or performed offline. It's very tempting to assume that a MUD or MOO is a "society on a hard drive," but doing so fails to account for this off/online distinction, as well other important factors: acquaintance between players on MUD X which may spill over onto its offspring, MUD Y, or between players who go to MUD gatherings. Chances are, these familiarities will correspond to "wizzes," i.e., maintainers--and, as such, could be quite decisive. And then, of course, there's the murky range of issues associated with MUD/MOO "propriety"--confessional intimacies, sexual trysts, and so on --which almost invariably are "solved" with policies imposing a burden of respect for private and public areas (and then, in a further cycle, imposing a burden of "relative" respect--adult or "semipublic" areas). An archive that documented *everything* would dampen or alter people's behavior, whereas an archive that didn't...well, where do you draw the line and why, and how do you substantiate the validity of that choice? Perhaps all of this was on your mind when you mentioned "their dynamic and social nature"; it certainly doesn't answer your question, though.
Ted
______________________________________________________________________
