This was written about MOO by a "friend" at the legendary PMC MOO back when it was a happening place. It's still limping along these days at
PMCMOO Here's to Smack...
TECHNOLOGICAL HIERARCHY IN MOO
Reflections on Power in Cyberspace
Troy Whitlock
RTF 393C
With the astounding international growth of the Internet,
communities have developed around host sites, technological
platforms and mutual interests. Inter-Relay Chat, USENET, MUDs
and electronic bulletin boards all represent types of communicative
mediums that allow for the development of virtual communities.
"The conceptual space where words, human relationships, data, and
power are manifested by people using computer mediated
communication," forms the larger region of cyberspace that hosts
these virtual communities [1]. The technological network of the
Internet has become this metaphorical and mythic cyberspace, a
vast electronic frontier.
Cyberspace is a slippery signifier. Like the Post Modernist
conceptualization of "hyper-space", it can be created, destroyed, or
expanded by pure intellectual construction [3]. The ability to
position ourselves within this space, to cognitively map it, is lost
among the infinite pathways of the network.
Cybernetics is theoretical study of the intersection of electronic,
mechanical and biological systems. Perhaps McLuhan had this
cybernectic ideal in mind when he suggested that media and
technolgies act as extensions of man (for example, that the wheel is
an extension of the foot). In particular, he noted that the extension
of our nervous system into electronic media creates a new kind of
perceptual world. He called this "auditory space" because it is a
communal space, rather than a perceptual space. If these serve as
appropriate metaphors, perhaps we might propose that this
cybernetic process acts as the matrix of cyberspace [2].
Following McLuhan's concept of the implosive effects of this global
electronic environment, the collapse of the perceptual worlds of
time and space, Baudrillard notes that the boundaries between
image or simulation and reality have imploded. The experience of
"the real" has vanished. Replacing this reality, and reproducing "the
real" is the hyperreality of our media saturated environment.
Cyberspace exists as a kind of hyperreality; "it is not unreal, or
surreal, but realer-than-real" [4].
Virtual Reality, by which I mean any kind of immersive
environmental technology, and cyberspace, characterized perhaps
as the unexplored realms of the electronic frontier, both constitute
a kind of alternate reality. As alternate realities they represent, in
all but a metaphysical sense, an imagined experience. Yet the
pioneers of cyberspace treat their worlds as if they were real. This
reality is facilitated and mediated by computers and the networks
that form virtual communities. Elizabeth Reid, in her masters thesis
entitled "Cultural Formations in Text-Based Virtual Reality",
describes virtual worlds as existing "not in the technology used to
represent them, nor purely in the mind of the user, but in the
relationship between internal mental constructs and technologically
generated representations of these constructs" [5]. Reid also notes
that it is not the technological interface that sustains the
"suspension of disbelief" in deference to these new realities, but the
construction of meaning there. A virtual acquaintance once told me,
"Foucault has taught us, space is incumbent with power and visa
versa. Every space needs to be colonized - to be imbued with
meaning - in short, to become a social environment" [6].
The exploration of this new environment is in many ways a frontier
experience. These pioneers are media savvy, acculturated to media
saturated environments, and feel ultimately gratified by the
"coolness" of the medium. McLuhan's conception of a "cool" medium
is manifested by its interactivity and intertextuality, "cool media
are high in participation or completion by the audience" [7]. The
rugged individualists of the electronic frontier are actively engaged
in the construction of cyberspace.
It is the thrill of exploration and discovery that is the rich reward
of "jacking in". For those who can adapt to the interfaces -the words
and emotions that fly across the screen, the cryptic and foreign
subcultures that flourish there, the current condition of the low-
band width of communication, the technological environments that
host our submersion and often prevent us from knowing what is
"really" happening - there is a kind of fascination that occurs with
the spectacle of it all. There is a recursion of our projections, we are
watching ourselves watching our selves watch ourselves.
As a process of this discovery, a form of volunteerism emerges.
People begin mixing their labor with the space. Exploring their
personal identity and externalizing their perceptions of the
environment on the "public sphere", pioneers carve out systems of
meaning and begin the process of "homesteading". A fellow pioneer
explains, "I am going to settle here, this is my space and not only
am I going to settle, I am going to shape an environment that is
best suited to me (that is an expression of my identity, my world
view, my lifeworld), I am going to develop my own little life, and
my own little world, right here on this huge chunk of nowhere" [8].
The label "virtual community" is a very generalized concept that
refers to the kinds of social interactions, networks and relationships
that develop through the exchange of information. Howard
Rheingold write of his experiences, "people in virtual communities
use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in
intellectual discourses, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge,
share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall
in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little
high art and a lot of idle talk" [9]. The networks that develop create
a social sphere that facilitates the informational economics of the
community. These interactions comprise communities in the sense
that there is some sense of shared meaning, purpose, or interest
that dictates the discourse and establishes the norms that define
the "community".
John Unsworth notes that communities are often a function of
shared location, shared interests, and sometimes a shared
government and shared property [10]. But he neglects to consider
that the understandings that link all of these other factors, are a
function of the system of shared meanings. Reid writes that "for
words to have a shared meaning they must be given a context... It
is the context that creates meaning and allows us to act." It allows
us to define our location, our interests, our government, our
existence as a community.
The form that virtual communities take will change as the
technologies that serve as their platforms advance. There is a
technological determinism inherent in the logic of each
communication structure. The specific limitations and advantages of
future media will remain central to the construction of the "virtual
community". However, the substance of the virtual community; the
personal interactions, the social and political dynamics, and the
construction of meaning, will remain the immersive enticements
that virtual communities offer us. They will in fact empower us, as
they advance our control over our experience of and interaction
with the environment.
The potential "ideal" model of technological empowerment is
simulated in the textual immersion offered by MOO spaces. MOO is a
network-accessible, multiple-user domain; a real-time user-
extendable virtual reality with and entirely textual interface.
Developed by Pavel Curtis at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center,
MOO is an experimental offshoot of the long established MUD
(Multiple User Dungeon, or Domain) platforms that are primarily a
gaming environment. There are about 200 different real-time,
multi- participant universes on the Internet, using nineteen
different world-building technologies. MOO is unique among them
because is provides users access to a powerful C based language for
manipulating the environment. The world of a MOO is really large
database. The "OO" in MOO stands for Object Oriented, as all the
people, places and things represented by the database exist as
objects, located with in the virtual structure of the environment.
The cyberspace of MOO is an infinite virtual geography of connected
room objects. Positioned within them are player objects, which can
themselves contain or carry objects. The MOO environment allows
users easy access to the objects that act as the building blocks of
the space, that they might contribute to or change the environment
itself [11].
Curtis explains that the "participants (usually called players) have
the appearance of being situated in an artificially-constructed place
that also contains those other players who are connected at the
same time. Players can communicate easily with each other in real
time (as well in the asynchronous modes of electronic mail and
bulletin boards). This virtual gathering place has many of the social
attributes of other places, and many of the usual social mechanisms
operate there. Certain attributes of this virtual place, however, tend
to have significant effects on social phenomena, leading to new
mechanisms and modes of behavior not usually seen `IRL' (in real
life)" [12].
The effects of computer mediated communication as presented by
the technological platform deconstruct the cultural understandings
that form the basis of face-to-face communication. Elizabeth Reid
notes that, "In coming to terms with these aspects of virtual
interaction, new systems of significance have been developed by
users, along with methods of enforcing that cultural hegemony
through power structures dependant upon manipulation of the
virtual environment."
The research of Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire describes the
distinctive features of computer-mediated communication as
having an absence of regulating feedback, dramaturgical weakness,
few social status cues and social anonymity [13]. Unlike Curtis, Reid
considers these findings inappropriate for understanding the
context of text-based VR. The spacial stage of text-based VR,
provides a culturally and dramaturgically fertile context for
communication. Unsworth believes that "MOOs are naturally
somewhat chaotic", as the structure allows everyone to speak and
be heard. Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire observed that in fact, "people
in computer-mediated groups were more uninhibited than they
were in face-to-face groups.", whether this is manifested by
increased intimacy or by antisocial behavior [14]. But Reid notes
that the social environments found on MUDs are not entirely
chaotic, "there is indeed no moment in which players are not
enmeshed within a web of social rules and expectations.
Descriptions, communicative commands and specialized language
and textual forms enable the social understandings which link
people together and allow the evolution and transmission of social
norms."
In the initial stages of world building, Reid explains, "Each MUD
system begin as a blank space. It is nothing more than a set of
commands and possibilities... They allow imagination and creativity
to furnish the void of cyberspace with socially significant
indicators." Reid concurs with Howard Rheingold's conceptualization
of Virtual Reality as primarily this kind of cultural construct. Reid
believes, "that it is primarily an imaginative, rather than sensory
experience." But the wish to down play the significance of the
technology, to include text based VR in the category of immersive
environments most often characterized by fully immersive graphic
systems, delimits the important role that the technology of VR has
in determining the form of the virtual community.
For instance, John Unsworth points out that the structural hierarchy
of MOO is in many ways a reflection of the Unix protocol that
supports it [15]. The basic form of the Unix filesystem is expressed
by a hierarchy of user groups and ownership. This hierarchy is a
dendriform, a treelike structure. At the base is the "root" directory,
that contains the other directories, or "branches", that in turn
contain more directories or files. Users belong to user groups and
are granted various levels of permission within the filesystem.
Every file and process has an owner, and the hierarchy of owners
explicitly mirrors the hierarchy of the filesystem itself.
This dendritic structure is reproduced in MOO by the object
oriented system of parentage. Every object in MOO is set within a
parent-child relationship. Through this system of inheritance, the
abilities and properties of objects are defined. The player John
might be a member of the user group, Ace's Super Handy Wizard
Player Class which grants the user useful programs for "Root"
maintenance of the environment. It is in turn a "child" of the
Generic Wizard Class that grants access to "superuser" functions.
This user group is a child of the Generic Programmer Class that
facilitates the use of the programming environment, and
additionally a child of the Generic Builder Class which allows the
user to create and destroy objects. These are children of the Generic
Player Class where reside all of the properties that can define
personal identity. These objects are also children the Root Object, to
which all objects are related.
Further, this basic relationship of parentage is also reflected in a
system of properties that indicate the permissions allowed within
the database. The Wizard [16] has "root" permissions to the
database and to control the virtual world. Programmers are allowed
to create programs with limited access to the full functions of the
database. This structural hierarchy allows users to exercise power
over their own data, but not over the data of others, and is meant
to protect the security of the system.
The Wizard user group has direct access to the entire database,
"enabling them to modify [it] in any way they please. They can
design any virtual setting into the system, and so create a MUD
universe" [17]. The wizardry retains the ultimate power to arbitrate
disputes between the individual exercise of power and the interests
of the community. These powers are not often taken lightly,
wizards are often constrained not only by each other, but by the
networks and social contracts that evolve within the community.
But Curtis writes of his experiences, "in the worst cases of
irresponsibility, the customary response is to punish the offender
with `toading'. This involves (a) either severely restricting the kinds
of actions the player can take or else preventing them from
connecting at all, (b) changing the name and description of the
player to present an unpleasant appearance (often literally that of a
warty toad), and (c) moving the player to some very public place
within the virtual reality. This public humiliation is often sufficient
to discourage repeat visits by the player, even in a different guise"
[18].
Further, Curtis notes that by virtue of their special permissions and
unique role in the community, wizards, in general, have a very
different experience within the environment. They do not often
spend time in the daily social activities of the community. They
may, however, act as sources of information for programmers who
have encountered some technological barrier or problem. Their
skills and permissions are typically in high demand. They perform
as administrators for the technological concerns of the system,
building, fixing and improving the environment and maintaining
system security. As the ultimate technological and social authority,
they must handle or at least administrate the handling of problems
and complaints.
The pressures and time constraints often placed on wizards deny
them to opportunity fully participate in the discursive process of
constructing meaning or to experience the environment from more
structurally restricted points of view. But as Reid notes, their
"power is quite literally the power to change the world".
Programmers, builders and players shape their virtual world in
more subtle ways. They are presented with a closed system. There
are limits to the commands and information to which they have
access. But within this structure they are able to create objects and
programs that change the form of the environment and the ways in
which players communicate. Through skillful use of language,
manipulation of the technological platform, and the creative use of
programming, they can simulate a host of detailed and immersive
environments, interactive agents, and new communication
networks.
After the establishment of some personal identity and personal
space, users often begin to externalize their vision of the
environment by learning to program. Players are allotted a limited
space within the database called quota. Players use their quota to
build new objects that "belong" to them. Every object's existence in
the database can be customized to simulate a spacial object within
the virtual environment. Its "reality" is defined both by virtue of its
parentage, which defines the preexisting abilities and properties of
an object, and by new verbs and properties added by the
programmer, to further enhance the object.
A verb is an executable routine that is attached to an object. It
permits the programmed code to be executed by a player or
another verb. The object orientation of MOO presents objects and
their verbs in space. Users can manipulate an object that is oriented
within the same location. I can create a notebook so that when the
notebook's object is spatially registered in my possession I can
invoke its verb:
.
Everyone at my location would see that I am writing the phrase in
my notebook, and that information would be stored in the notebook
for future use. The arguments of the verb provide for the phrase
"Programming Technology" (the direct object), to be written (the
verb) in the notebook (the indirect object). I could then invoke the
verb: and the object representing the
notebook would be registered in Fred's possession, so he might read
what I had written. The information itself would be stored in a
property on the object. Properties are spaces defined on an object
for containing data in the form of numbers, text, lists, or indexes.
An object's description, ownership, and permissions are all
contained within its properties.
Verbs form the basis for the development of the illusionary and
immersive technologies that construct the virtual reality. There are
five basic technologies that programmers use to construct virtual
environments; telling, attribution, filtering, moving and testing.
Telling is simply the displaying of text, but in a virtual world
dependant on textual information, it is the substance of action.
Objects can be moved or manipulated by programming
technologies, but if there is no message indicating such an action
has occurred, it will be invisible. Telling is also the substance of
space, creative description and ambient messages create the textual
existence of an otherwise lifeless object. Skillful use of telling takes
into account the variety of perspectives that an illusion might be
witness from. Besides using the gender property to properly
address the users, the programmer considers the various
relationships to an action. For example, if I gave the notebook to
Fred; I would see - "You give the notebook to Fred, Fred would see -
"Troy just handed you a notebook.", and everyone else would see -
"Troy hands his notebook to Fred.".
The term "spam" refers to an overwhelming amount of text that in
some way imposes on the viewer. Objects with long descriptions or
that generate a lot of ambient "noise" are considered spammy if
they cause text to scroll beyond the limits of the viewer's monitor
before they can be read. Spam can be a debilitating weapon as well.
Programming loops that generate large volumes of text are used to
usurp personal space, prohibiting the victim from experiencing or
participating in the environment. A couple thousand lines of
malicious text can clog up a slow connection for a long time.
Closely related to telling, in fact existing as a function of it, is the
process of attributing action to an object. When an action occurs it is
important that message accurately reflect the relationships of the
objects affected. A message indicating that "The notebook just gave
Fred to you." would not make any sense in the context I have
mentioned.
When a player enters a room, a message is generally generated
indicating that this action has occurred. This action is not a primary
message in the sense that the player himself constructed the
communication. When indicating action in virtual space, users often
use the convention of posing or emoting. This allows them to
directly attribute action to themselves. Invoking the verb rolling on the floor laughing> would display "John is rolling on the
floor laughing" to others in that player's location.
But when a player enters a room, it is the exit object that generates
the message indicating the players arrival. Users usually consent to
this attribution to the extent that it accurately reflects their actions
and contributes to the virtual environment, but the message could
attribute any action the programmer designed it to.
The creation of illusions that misrepresent the "shared" reality, or
falsely attribute action are called spoofs. Spoofs can be humorous
sources of comic relief, (often at the expense of the spoofed) but are
also necessary when developing programming technologies that
might involve others. Objects are often programmed to cause
simulated behaviors in players. Drinking a lot of virtual beer might
generate embarrassing spoofs that were not necessarily consented
to by the participant. Programmers often spoof players to add
realism to a virtual environment, or to engage others in various
forms of play or virtual dance. But when this technology disrupts
the integrity of shared understandings and wrests away control of
personal space and identity, it is no longer an acceptable use of
attribution.
Filtering is also a questionable technology, because it is interception
of textual (sometimes private) messages generated by the
environment. It is not an interception in the sense that it prevents
communication, but rather that it collects, alters, relays or responds
to the data. Its practical uses extend to several kinds of virtual
objects. Filters can be used to log discussions for future reference.
Filters can also change the composition of messages for effect. There
are virtual spaces that replace certain words and sounds with
dialectal equivalents, to generate the atmosphere of a bayou or a
prison. Filters also allow artificial agents and environmental
systems to respond to the actions and words of other objects.
Robots are often constructed to offer helpful advice when prompted
by the utterance of key words. New communication environments
can be generated by filters by circumventing the spacial metaphor
and broadcasting the messages anywhere, or everywhere. But when
filters are used to violate privacy, by substituting the aesthetics of
illusion for those of subversion, the assumptions that people make
about their security and privacy are destroyed. The kind of
intimate and personal communications that occur in cyberspace are
easily undermined by abusive use of filtering technology. The
planting of bugs and spying are reviled forms of behavior,
particularly the by unwitting victims.
Moving is the orienting of objects within the virtual space. Every
object is has a location within the MOO. Moving is simply altering
that location. Moving technologies like Generic Exits, allow users to
move from room to room. Programmers also create rooms that
move through the virtual geography of the space and assist users in
navigating the terrain. But the nature of the programming
environment allows individuals to be moved like any other object.
Unless a user has taken special precautions, programmers can move
them or their objects, against their will.
Testing is a general category of programming technologies,
describing the algorithms that programmers develop as
propositional models for the system to analyze and act upon.
Comparing properties, variables, and logical statements to
conditional arguments allow programs to initiate various kinds of
dependant actions but allow those actions to occur independent of a
direct command. Using filtering and testing technologies, artificial
intelligence algorithms of varying degrees of sophistication have
been developed to facilitate ideas about virtual agency. Testing
allows the system to differentiate between the various levels of
permissions needed to perform certain functions. Testing also
allows for a kind of automated harassment. Conditional statements
can be used to harass a targeted individual or group of individuals
while the programmer is not even connected.
Together these technologies form the basis for constructing the
object oriented illusion of text-based virtual reality. They are
powerful tools for manipulating the environment and offer to the
programmer control over at least their own encounter with the
virtual space. But the particularly fascinating aspect of these
technologies is the way in which they manifest power in a social
form, and perhaps this is the ultimate appeal of MOO as a virtual
community. The ability to extend ones personal space to the
communal space and to subsequently to change the way others
experience, behave, or communicate within the environment
creates alternate hierarchies of power. Existing in symbiosis with
the social networks, the instant gratification and feedback from the
audience and the ability to act as a network of information and
technology for others manipulating the environment, a user's
technological power allows for the creation of strong ties to the
community.
Reid contends that "these hierarchies are social rather than
economic in base -- they depend on interaction rather than on the
scarcity of the power commodity", but in MOO, information is itself
power and constitutes an economic base. Reid understands that "it
is the production of knowledge about the virtual environment
which produces the environment itself. This production of
knowledge and virtuality powers the socially cohesive body", but
neglects the importance the raw information of programming code
has on the structure of the technological hierarchy.
Networks of "helpful people" that distribute information about
persons, places and things, the daily-life of the community and the
social contacts that can act as a web of influence, form the social
economy that Reid proposes. But the actual technological
manipulation of the environment exists as a kind of informational
power. The information represented by the lines of code, and
information about the proper syntax and structure of that code are
the themselves the base of an alternate hierarchy.
Players construct personal objects to act as parents objects that are
in turn copied and customized by the members of the community. I
might make my notebook a Generic Notebook, so that everyone can
create their own personalized copy of my object. To the extent that
I control the verbs and properties of the generic, I maintain a
technological control of the use of my parent object. This kind of
control extends to the owners of the generic rooms that host the
immersive environment as well as the player class objects that act
as user groups. The control and influence maintained by the
creators of popular generics extends past the simple social
interactions that construct the community. Innovative or
manipulative programs provide individuals with power over how
others interact with the environment. Community standards dictate
the limits of the legitimate exercise of this power, but due to the
nature of the technological platform, can not act as a prior restraint.
There are many forms of power that affect the construction of these
alternate hierarchies, but the most significant are those forms of
power that have a constructive influence on the community. Social
power, discursive power, environmental power, technological
power, and the power of the structural hierarchy, all maintain the
realities of the community. Foucault wrote, "We are subjected to the
reproduction of truth through power, and we cannot exercise power
except through the production of truth" [19]. Power in MOO space,
in cyberspace, as in real space, is about the production of truth, the
construction of reality. In MOO space this is power is primarily
exercised by the skillful use of language, the skillful manipulation
of the environment and the skillful use of the illusionary
technologies of the programming structure.
Most MOO databases host list objects that act as electronic bulletin
board systems for the community. The kinds of conversations that
develop on these lists are different than the real-time
conversations. As lists are primarily public, anyone can read and
respond to them and they act as archives for the evolution of a
community. The nature of real-time communication is such that is
often difficult to develop an extended line of argument without
being interrupted for some point of clarification. Lists provide a
forum suitable for addressing the more detailed and complex issues
of the community. There are lists for the consideration of social and
political issues, for the discussion of technological problems and
developments, and for a variety of special projects or topics of
interest to each particular community. The daily real-time
conversations are important for the establishing of networks and
shared meanings that form the basis of community, but the "public
sphere" of the MOO is played out on its lists. The kind of discursive
constructions that occur on lists, the way in which language is used
and the variety perspectives that they offer the community,
profoundly impact the "reality" of the community.
New technologies for play and work often change the way in which
people socialize and communicate. The construction of interesting
public environmental spaces, conference rooms, coffee houses,
theaters, and hot tubs, create social spaces for the daily interactions
of the community. New channels of communications facilitate
different kinds of real-time interactions by linking groups of
interested individuals, regardless of virtual location. These
communication channels, most often characterized as a form of
Citizens Band radio, allow multiple levels of interaction to develop.
One might be engaged in a private conversation with individuals in
the same object location, as well as holding more private levels of
the same conversation with specific individuals, and at the same
time assist other programmers via a CB object and gossip on a MOO-
wide communications channel.
New programming technologies can change the environment itself.
Programmers often push the boundaries of the community by
making objects that call into question shared assumptions. Objects
that spy, spam or spoof have been used maliciously as well as
constructively to point out these assumptions and bring to light
new questions of community and authority. The community often
adapts to these changes by creating new technologies and social
systems to protect privacy and personal space from these
manipulations. Technologies to gag, refuse or ban offending objects
and players, allow users to remove these experiences from their
personal realities. On some MOOs, systems of judicial and legislative
recourse allow users to arbitrate and resolve disputes through
official channels of power, and on others, there exists a kind of
frontier justice exercised through even more sophisticated
technologies to isolate or incapacitate the accused.
Changes in the political and structural system, to provide users
greater control over the environment and community, offer a host
of new boundaries to explore. More diverse hierarchies develop
within systems that allow users to serve in new capacities of
authority. Architectural and Quota Review Boards act as official
mechanisms for enforcing the standards of a community. Model
economic systems have developed to host new networks of power
and influence in the community. Opening the system to political
initiatives grants popular authority to change the community from
the "grassroots" level, overriding the top down forms of structural
authority.
The now famous incident of "A Rape in Cyberspace", details how
this kind of technological manipulation and the rise of a "public
sphere" can change the environment [20]. In March of 1993, Pavel
Curtis's LambdaMOO took its first steps towards solidifying a
political system as a result of one person's deviant behavior. An
evil Bisquick-faced clown named Mr. Bungle created a child of a
generic voodoo doll to manifest the illusion that he was controlling
the behaviors of others. The voodoo doll is a form of spoofing
technology, usually used for amusing play, but Mr. Bungle used this
technology create the illusion that he was repeatedly forcing these
unwilling participants into graphic sexual acts. Mr. Bungle said of
his behavior, "I engaged in a bit of a psychological device that is
called thought-polarization, the fact that this is not [real] simply
added to heighten the affect of the device. It was purely a sequence
of events with no consequence on my [real] existence" [21]. This
was not the case for his victims, for whom the loss of control was
very real.
Mr. Bungle's assault took place in Living Room of LambdaMOO, its
most popular social space. Julian Dibbell writes, "So strong, indeed,
is the sense of convivial common ground invested in the living
room that a cruel mind could hardly imagine a better place to stage
a violation of LambdaMOO's communal spirit." The response of the
victims and the community at large, to this threat to their social
reality, was to call for the "toading" of Mr. Bungle. But the ability to
"toad", to prevent a user from connecting to the MOO, is necessarily
a "root" level command.
Four months before this incident, Curtis officially released the
wizardry from responsibilities to the social sphere. The wizards of
LambdaMOO had grown weary of adjudicating the daily problems
and conflicts of the community. In "LambdaMOO Takes a New
Direction", Curtis constructed a specific role for the wizards; they
would act simply as "technicians", to implement whatever decisions
were directed to them by the community as a whole. For Mr. Bungle
to be toaded, some form of social organization would had to be
established for representing the interests of community.
Over the next three days the conversations and lists of LambdaMOO
revolved around the potential establishment of some legitimate
representational authority. It quickly became clear that the variety
of perspectives and political philosophies of the populace would
make consensus difficult, if not impossible. On the evening of the
third day, a large public, real-time conversation was held to discuss
what to do. Dibbell writes of this meeting, "Arguments multiplied
and mingled, players talked past and through each other, the
textual clutter of utterances and gestures filled up the screen like
thick cigar smoke... it seemed increasingly clear that the vigorous
intelligence being brought to bear on this swarm of issues wasn't
going to result in anything remotely like resolution." The evening's
meeting adjourned without any substantive solution for defining
the community. A lone wizard, acting under no formal authority
except that of his hierarchical status, issued the command to "toad"
Mr. Bungle's character.
A few days later, Curtis announced "the final, missing piece of the
New Direction", the construction of "a system petitions and ballots
whereby anyone could put to popular vote and social scheme
requiring wizardly powers for its implementation, with the results
of the vote to be binding on the wizards" [22]. This system of
petitions and ballots, along with eventual implementation of a user
administered arbitration system, would have profound impacts on
the social and political hierarchies that developed at LambdaMOO.
The petition system offered a new kind of power for defining
communal space and the arbitration system offered judicial
recourse that could administer its justice with wizardly authority as
well. These new hierarchies mingled with the old to produce new
conflicts over the construction of language and power.
This type of conflict is typified by the case of Mickey vs. Sunny,
filed as a dispute within the arbitration system as part of an
ongoing conflict between these two users. Mickey is a LambdaMOO
citizen of long standing importance to the community, both as a
programmer and communitarian. Mickey is also (debatably) a
member of the so called "Power Elite", an ambiguous group
individuals closely tied to (and even members of) the wizardry and
long time Lambda residents. Mickey has the permissions
(password) necessary to alter the core code of the Arbitration
System. He denies being its "janitor", but acts in a capacity that
obligates him in some fashion to the users of that system. Sunny is
also a valued citizen, but is not in very good standing with the
"Power Elite". Sunny often questions what she sees as the
unrestrained and unauthorized abuse of power by the "Power Elite".
Sunny has used the political power of the Arbitration system to
engage in numerous disputes with various members of the PE and
wizardry, including Curtis himself, but with little success. Sunny is
herself an Arbitrator, and is a professional counselor. She casts
herself as the persecuted voice of reason, pointing out the
corruption of the PE and the inconsistencies of the Arbitration
system. Mickey portrays her, as a paranoid, slanderous, and
malignant nuisance that deserves to be "toaded", and has supported
such a petition against her. Neither Mickey nor Sunny can ever
recall a time when they have directly conversed with each other,
but their endless posts and flames to the various lists of
LambdaMOO chronicle their mutual disdain [23].
Sunny requested that a new verb be added to the Arbitration
System to generate a list of the history of disputes and the
arbitrators who worked on them, to aid in the selection of
appropriate arbitrators for new disputes. Mickey responded to this
request by writing the code, but he placed it on a object called the
"Lying Weasel Feature Object". Sunny interpreted this feature
object as form of harassment referring to a previous object of the
same name, meant to mock her. She demanded that the verb be
added to the Arbitration System itself, arguing that Mickey was
acting in his capacity as "janitor" when creating the code, and thus
it was the property of the Arbitration System. She envisions a
centralized system for Arbitration, but the ad hoc nature of MOO
has meant a variety of private tools and resources, scattered among
the members of the community.
In response to these complaints, Mickey disabled the feature object
for her and demanded an apology. Mickey defended his actions,
contending that though he had access to the Arbitration System, it
was not his to do with as he pleased. The legitimate authority for
Mickey to refuse or consent to add the verb to the Arbitration
System is readily debatable, but Sunny filed an Arbitration
proposal to have Mickey's access to the Arbitration System code
revoked.
Sunny charged in her proposal to have Mickey removed as the
"janitor" of Arbitration, that his "opportunism is creating a fractious
and divisive atmosphere that is antithetical to cohesive cooperation
in this very serious program of Arbitration" [24]. Mickey responded
with arbitration of his own, filing a dispute against Sunny for
slander; "This is a community built on words. If those words are not
required to carry truth, this community is built on nothing [25]".
But slander is a category of language and in MOOspace, the words
that compose "truth" and "lies" are mingled as part of the illusion.
Mickey's primary demands of Sunny, for the redress of his
grievances, were an apology, an admission of guilt, public
statements recanting inaccuracies and a promise to refrain from
making publicly false statements in the future. Simple enough
demands, but from Sunny's perspective there were no inaccuracies
to recant.
Mickey began to threaten the community; that if his grievances
were not sustained that he, along with other players, would leave,
taking their programs and skills with them. He began to disable his
public programs as an expression of his power and influence over
the community. A friend of Mickey's and member of the "Power
Elite", Euphistopheles, began a petition to have Sunny "toaded" for
crimes against the community. He mailed this letter to all the users
of his generic objects:
Dear [Player]:
I am writing to all the owners of kids of my generics; and will
explain why.
You have probably heard that I am campaigning for an unfortunate
petition: *p:toadsunny, to expel Sunny from LambdaMOO. Since
that's a pretty mean thing to do to someone, it is understandably
difficult to raise supporters.
I am a junior member of a group that has been characterized in two
different ways: the programmers who build the tools we use on the
MOO, versus, the PE who oppress the public by rewriting the rules
to suit ourselves. It is certainly true that strong programmers have
a larger share of influence; but, in my opinion, Sunny's campaign of
lies and slander against the people who have invested years of
their lives to make this place work (Mickey, Grump, Blackbriar,
Haakon (Pavel Curtis),...) damages the MOO itself. Also, I argue that
she has not merely "expressed political opinions" but committed
crimes: perjury, libel, election fraud, and chronic mail-related
unmannerliness.
I am not asking you to support *p:toadsunny; I am asking you to
invest some of *your* time, becoming informed of the issues, so
that you can choose to sign or not, according to your conscience.
Alot of people say, "she hasn't bothered me, so I don't care" or
"toading is too mean for any crime"... But I ask you to really look at
the evidence, before taking a position.
You own [object] a kid of my generic [object#]; I spent some time
building that. Now, I don't mean to depict myself as a noble slave of
the commonwealth; I had fun building it. But if you have spent any
time *enjoying* it, then I'd be grateful if you spent some time
researching a just resolution to *p:toadsunny. The Wizards won't do
this for us anymore; we have to police ourselves, even tho it isn't
fun.
This is an unpleasant topic, and I wish I didn't have to do this. But
the MOO has to take responsibility for itself, one way or the other,
and the best way is informed voting. Please help. [26]
Sunny eventually apologized, admitted her guilt and resigned as a
member of Arbitration. The dispute was thus settled, and
opposition silenced. The petition to toad Sunny failed, but
accusations remain as to Sunny's sincerity and continued distortion
of the facts.
This case demonstrates the overlap of hierarchies and the quest for
power in defining the limits of community and authority. The
technological hierarchy rubbing up against the discursive and
political power of alternate hierarchies creates unique cultural
formations that can not exist aside from the technologies that have
hosted their development. Take for another example the occurrence
of technological and discursive "Terrorism" at the Post Modern
Culture MOO. Within the context of LambdaMOO such a campaign
would have been short lived, but in the less structured
environment of PMC MOO, "Terrorism" created radical new
encounters with the medium and hosted new theoretical
approaches to the intersection MOO and Post Modern theory [27].
Perhaps at the risk of taking liberties with the extensive and
complex history of Post Modernism, I shall propose a meager
explanation informed by Pauline Marie Rosenau's Post-Modernism
and the Social Sciences. "It rejects epistemological assumptions,
refutes methodological conventions, resists knowledge claims,
obscures all versions of truth, and dismisses policy
recommendations" [28]. The Post Modernist critique is expansive,
expounding deconstructive analysis of texts, authors, subjects,
history, time, space, theory, knowledge, representation and
democracy.
John Unsworth, Director of the Institute for Advanced Technologies
in the Humanities, at the University of Virginia, is also the head
wizard of Post Modern Culture MOO. It was created as an offshoot of
the popular electronic journal, Postmodern Culture, as a site for
real-time text-based conferencing on journal-related activities. As a
feature of the technological platform, it was also hoped that it
would be possible to explore concepts in Post Modern thought
through the development of interactive programs. It was host to a
rather small and homogeneous group of individuals familiar with
the journal, or its companion listserv, PMC-Talk. But when PMC
MOO's address appeared in an addition of the popular Wired
magazine, the community of PMC MOO quickly changed.
**Author's Note**
I have tried to layout my perspectives with less than an impassive
tone and my definitions are as much a reflection of my encounter
with the medium as they are practical considerations.
My life in cyberspace has been relatively confined to life in a
particular identity, in a particular historical context. I have been a
sojourner to many virtual worlds, but it was at PMC that I first
discovered MOO. I have rambled about LambdaMOO enough to feel
at home, yet never at home enough to build one. I served in quite
an active capacity as a wizard at the (yet to be revived)
experimental PointMOOt; I have seen the best and worst the job has
to offer. But all of these were an extension of my experiences at
PMC. I discovered it shortly after Wired published the address,
from a post to the Alt.Postmodern USENET Newsgroup. I arrived
just in time to see the old hierarchy die. Things were hostile then,
and I must at once admit, I was an active participant in the praxis
that followed.
****************
Back then, PMC MOO shared a server with a library computer at
North Carolina State University and as it's population increased, it
was beginning to increase its demands on the host computers
memory. The MOO had to be moved to a new server at the
University of Virginia, and thus the stage was set for the
Apocalypse. There was to be a literal destruction of our
environment, object by object, a celebration of deconstruction. We
were encouraged to participate in "The End", though there seemed
to be no guarantee that we would all be welcome at the new site.
The community of PMC MOO was well fragmented. There were
many exclusive networks of programmers who seemed to be
competing for power, in the absence of an established political
structure. The wizards made relatively few demands on the
community, nor did they often participate in the emerging sub-
communities, in fact it was a rare day indeed, to even see one
around. Veteran members of the community seemed dissatisfied
with the "quality" of conversation and the behavior of some of the
recent immigrants. A rash of "spying" and limited "intrusions", as
well as a great deal of rumor and gossip created an air of suspicion
and paranoia.
One day I was hanging out with Palefist, a very prominent and
skillful programmer, a multi-media designer living in Montreal. He
had only recently come to PMC, but his programming skills were
particularly advanced. His personal demeanor is as his name
suggests; he was a very powerful figure. Yet, he was well respected
and was always quite polite and dignified. We were conversing in a
rather public place and happened to encounter a female-presenting
user being harassed by two very male newbies, competing for her
attention. Almost without thought, Ogre and I stole their belongings
[29], planted them on the "other", initiated an imaginary
disagreement between them, and spoofed them into a fight. A small
blast of spam dissuaded them from continuing the confrontation.
They became very confused and quickly left. Needless to say we
were quite amused with ourselves, as well as overwhelmed with
the principles that we had discovered.
We continued our discussion, turning to the current state of affairs
and the ultimate "end of it all". We began to relate our discoveries,
about the nature of power in the MOO, to the hostilities and
tensions in the community. I suppose we felt that the we were
actually fatalistically compelled by the realization itself. It occured
to us that the Apocalypse was an oppurtunity to create something
subtle and unique; something that would turn the MOO upside-
down, that we might peer at its soft underbelly.
The illusion of a "Revolution", an inversion of the power hierarchy,
a shock to jump-start the community; these were our goals. Our
means to this end would be Palefist's brilliantly constructed MOO
Terrorist Player Class. This player class provided non-programmers
access to the same illusionary technologies that a programmer used,
but with a little more zip. That is not to say that it was juvenile or
vicious . Palefist was very stylish and committed to good taste. The
player class was not programmed to spam (as this is just bad form),
but it did provide an all-purpose spoof verb, to "describe a mood,
action, or throw your voice" [Appendix I]. It provided easy
functions for stealing and planting objects, and featured a secret
"Terrorist" intercom system. Probably the most disruptive feature
of this player class was its "bomb" verb. This verb would allow
users to send a "black sedan filled with explosives" to toss Molotov
cocktails anywhere in the MOO. The resultant virtual explosion
would send victims to the Hospital in the main PMC MOO complex.
But Palefist was careful to craft the bombs to only affect
programmers. We felt programmers were the only legitimate
targets of our revolution, the ones responsible for the current state
of disillusionment, and "a group of people with enough experience
and the wherewithal to handle themselves and the situation" [ 30].
Choosing to empower players over programmers further
heightened the effect of the inversion of hierarchies.
This was all done in the spirit of play. Afterwards, the general
consensus was that it was at least interesting, if not entertaining. It
was spontaneous, it fostered the development of new networks, and
it was "ultimately harmless". A few people found it irritating, but it
was after all the "Apocalypse". Perhaps it is a faulty assumption to
believe that one should be "safe" in cyberspace; the absence of a
"fringe" negates questions about "rights".
Our experiment was for the most part a success. It was an
interesting use of programming and for the most part, its intrusions
were rather limited. Further, the imagery of the "revolution"
definitely added to the sense that there was some form of
"radicalized community". Unfortunately, this did not translate into
more inter-group cooperation, rather contributed to divisiveness
between groups. It wasn't very long before other programmers had
created their own verbs, both to protect themselves and to wreak
havoc on others.
The "Apocalypse" soon blossomed into an all out war. A few took
advantage of the chaos to act out personal vendettas, engaging in
ruthless manipulation of personal space. Palefist was able to
exercise some authority over the "Terrorists", as owner of the
player class, but other player classes were developed that allowed
for far more abusive uses of technology. Many long time users were
disgusted by the "social darwinism" that had evolved, and left. The
wizards were simply not organized enough to maintain order, but
that would soon change.
The wizards solidified their authority at the new site, by
establishing a code of behavior, "Obnoxious behavior is uniformly
and universally discouraged here... Repeated nuisance behavior will
cost you your player" [31]. They felt that our ideas reflected an
understanding of Post Modernism as "anarchy" or an "absence of
rules". The wizards refused to assist or even acknowledge the work
new users were doing, or address the questions "community" that
were raised. They maintained a rigid resistance to suggestions of
change. We felt that we were engaged in a deconstructive critique,
a Post Modern praxis of play. We hoped, that by calling the norms
and assumptions of the community into question, we might
reinvigorate the fragmenting "public sphere". The wizards claimed
to be promoting a Post Modern theme, but they insisted on the
totality of their authority to define it, very un-PoMo. Palefist
noted, "they complained that new users were more interested in
playing around and making things than talking about Post Modern
Culture. I thought this was a shallow take on the situation, because
we were *living* PoMo, and more often than not, it was a chance to
explore it more deeply than exchanging notes" [32].
The project of "Terrorism" soon changed to a discursive campaign.
The list, *Theory, a forum for the discussion of Post Modern theory
as it relates to MOO, became host to a healthy discussion of the
exercise of power and authority on the part of the Wizardry. They
maintained little contact with the community, seldom offered their
resources to programmers, and yet felt justified in imposing their
vision on the MOO. It was in fact their privilege to do so, as was so
often pointed out, but the lack of organization and the refusal to
acknowledge and empower the other hierarchies that had
developed within the community, stagnated its development [33].
Soon new programs evolved to challenge the very vague "code of
conduct" that had been imposed. A character named Sedate, who
was and remains to be - the archetypical "fool" of PMC, created a
program called a "Random Pager", allowing messages to be send
randomly and anonymously across the MOO:
Random Pager: (#4077)
----
NOTICE!!!
By adding this feature to your list of features, you are hereby
absolving Sedate, player (#2803) from any and all actions and
consequences caused by this feature object (#4077).
If you do not agree with this, then type @rmfeature #4077.
If you do not, then you are agreeing to the stipulations contained
herein.
Features:
@page (message)
@page Welcome to PoMo City!
Random_Player sees: Random_Player pages, "Welcome to PoMo
City!"
Disclaimer!
The owner of this feature object (Sedate, #2803) in no way
endorses using this device to send rude messages. This device is
for the sole purpose of sending `nice' messages like "hello , how are
you today" or "my what nice weather we seem to be virtually
having." or of a similar nature. [34]
Of course this is not how it was used. As owner of this verb, Sedate
appeared (at the technological level) to be responsible for all the
pages generated by it. Players abused this anonymity at Sedate's
expense. It wasn't long before he was "newted" [35]. He was given
no warning or explanation. Some felt this was long overdue,
whereas others were enraged by the continued imposition of
"harsh, arbitrary limits". They saw this is kind of control as
manifesting "Modern" concepts of hierarchical authority,
supposedly rejected by the "Post Modern" wizardry.
I had created an object called the "DarkWhole", which brought me
into a confrontation with the wizardry as well. This object was
similar to Jorge Luis Borge's concept of the "Panopticon", it allowed
one to experience the entirety of the communicative environment
at once, to see, or rather hear, everywhere in the MOO. But to do so
it used a spying technology, a microphone placed surreptitiously. It
was a publicly accessible room so it could be used by anyone, to
spy on any unsecured room in the MOO. Players began use and
abuse this device, and again, because of ownership, my personal
object number appeared to be technologically responsible for the
invasion. Yet, there was no clear policy on "spying". Invasions of
privacy failed to fall within the category of "rights" which the
wizards chosen to protect [36]. The complaints generated against
me had no legal grounds, and the wizards were hard pressed to
legitimate their harassment of me. Their dictate that "repeated
nuisance behavior will cost you your player" was serving as a poor
source of polity. How often is repeated? Who is a nuisance to
whom? What constitutes behavior?
The wizardry refused to address our complaints or our challenges,
feeling they were either misplaced and misguided. John Unsworth
ultimately sought to silence the dissent by brute force commenting,
"arbitrary decisions are quick and seem efficient... sensitive
mediateio is nicer but takes forever and doesn't always deal with
problems" [37]. Sedate was toaded and yet another "code of
conduct" was announced. Spamming and spoofing were universality
outlawed. We found this particularly ironic, that they would outlaw
universally the technologies that create the environment. How
many lines constitutes spam? At what point does consented
attribution become "spoofing". But we knew that the community
was already too large and diverse to police. There were a lack of
social networks for enforcing the rules, but as the Wizards now
trusted no one, this is immaterial. The propagation of abusive
technologies continues to plague the community. A sense of "vague
uneasiness" and tension remains, allowing daily life to be easily
disrupted by outbreaks of obnoxious behavior. The technologies of
"Terrorism" have long since been destroyed, but their logic
continues to dominate the discourse. Succeeding generations of
programmers have sought to replace the alternate hierarchies
abandoned by the exodus of disenchanted citizens. Many of the
same themes have reemerged, but most often in a less charming
fashion.
My experiences seem to support the proposition that the
"fundamental coerciveness of a society, exists not in its mechanisms
of social control, but its ability to impose itself as reality" [38]. This
society, its reality, is impacted by the networks that develop
there, as well as the technological media that hosts it. Control over
the medium, informational power, should be diffused through these
networks, to allow the virtual space to reflect the sensibilities of its
inhabitants. I find it ultimately ironic that those who rail against
such a diffusion as promoting the "quest" for power in cyberspace,
are themselves engaged in such a political economy. Whether a user
@gripes, @gags, @redlists, @toads, whines, complains, casts
dispersions or flames, spams, spoofs, spies or moves; they are
exercising power: Power in the economic sense of exchanging
information, power in the discursive sense of building a community
of norms, power in the constructive sense of engaging and imposing
their will on the environment.
Appendix I:
%% TERRORIST CLASS PLAYER INSTRUCTIONS %%
Welcome to the Terrorist Player Class. Wear it proudly.
You are part of an elite cadre now, with special powers
and a duty to squash the bourgeois Programmer Class once
and for all! We must keep them off balance by striking
often. We must disseminate fear and confusion. To this
end, you have been given the following verbs:
--
steal from
Do not be shy, steal from the PC as they have stolen from us!
You have a 1 in 10 chance of tipping them off.
Some objects may be well guarded and therefore not possible to
steal.
ditch [player]
Drop all your inventory or plant it on another player.
This is good if you are caught stealing and have to get
rid of the evidence, or if someone has planted objects on you!
echo
Display any text to the room. Describe a mood, action, or throw
you
voice.
radio (or # )
Send a message to all Terrorists with your TerrorCom(tm)!
Notify Terrorists you are on the MOO, with `#' on its own.
salute (or sal)
Automatically salute your fellow comrades in the room.
slogan! (or slo)
Toe the party line with a host of Pro-Terrorist, Anti-Bourgeois
Programmer Class slogans. The greatest enemy of The People is
the
complacency of the Programmer Class!
kill [player]
Terrorists are trained in the lethal use of various weapons.
bomb
Get the comrades together for a drive-by bombing! Use this
feature sparingly, as it will bomb the entire location the
target is in. The bombs act indiscriminately, whereas before
they only killed programmers. No one is safe. We have upped the
ante, so to speak, toward the end of the MOO.
--Comrade Sabat has given the Terrorists exclusive use of
his SuperPets (which eat people). Thank you brother!
LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!
Footnotes:
[1] Howard Rhiengold, Virtual Community: Homesteading on the
Electronic Frontier (HarperPerennial, 1994), 5.
[2] Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964)
[3] Pauline Marie Rosenau, Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences:
Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions (Princeton University Press,
1992), 69.
[4] Douglas Kellner & Steven Best, Postmodern Theory: Critical
Interrogations (New York: The Guilford Press 1991), 119.
Jean Baudrillard, Simulations (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983), 23.
[5] Elizabeth Reid, "Culture Formations in Text-Based Virtual
Realities", Written in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Arts, Cultural Studies Program, Department of English,
University of Melbourne, January 1994, it is available by
anonymous FTP from
parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/MOO/papers/CulturalFormations.*.
* Note that there is no way to properly attribute page numbers to
electronic texts. Quotes are taken verbatim, unless otherwise
indicated.
[6] Surfer, Message 392 on *Theory-MOO at PMC
[7] McLuhan, 36.
[8] Allan Alford, aka Chiphead, "Discussions on PointMOOt", personal
interview, 6 November 1994.
[9] Rhiengold, 3.
[10] John Unsworth, "Living Inside the (Operation) System:
Community in Virtual Reality" Availabl\e by World Wide Web:
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/pmc/Virtual.Community.html
[11] Unsworth
[12] Pavel Curtis, "Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based
Virtual Realities," Intertek Vol 3.3 (Winter, 1992).
Also available by anonymous FTP from
parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/MOO/papers/DIAC92.*
[13] Sara Kiesler, Jane Siegel, and Timothy W. McGuire, "Social
psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication."
American Psychologist Vol 39 No. 10 (October 1984) 1123-1134.
[14] Kiesler et al, 1129. Reid
[15] This is Unsworth's central argument in "Living Inside the
(Operating) System: Community in Virtual Reality"
[16] The term, "Wizard", is a hold over from the days of knights and
warriors, an anachronism.
[17] Reid
[18] Curtis
[19] Rosenau, 78.
Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, Ed. Colin Gordon. Trans. Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John
Mepham, Kate Soper. (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1980), 132.
[20] Julian Dibbell, "A Rape in Cyberspace, or How an Evil Clown, a
Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a
Databas Into a Society." Originally published in Village Voice Vol.
38, No. 51 (December 21, 1993). Available by anonymous FTP at
parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/MOO/papers/VillageVoice.txt
[21] Mr. Bungle, quoted in Dibbell.
[22] Dibbell
[23] My primary sources are objects at LambdaMOO (telnet
lambda.parc.xerox.com 8888); Truthful Pursuits #9834, owned by
Sunny, Dispute:Mickey vs. Sunny #71969, Petition:ToadSunny
#6887 , *Arbitration #27485, Arbitration Proposal #68734, &
*Social-Issues #7233).
[24] Arbitration Proposal #68734
[25] Message 5 on D:Mickey vs.Sunny
[26] Message 5087 on *Social-Issues
[27] Troy Whitlock, "Fuck Art Let's Kill: Towards a Post Modern
Community" ;
Available by
gopher://actlab.rtf.utexas.edu/00/art_and_tech/rtf_papers/pmc.ter
rorism
[28] Rosenau 3.
[29] Though not in the literal sense. All objects and verbs have a
permenant owner, residing in a property that only a wizard can
alter.
[30] Palefist, quoted inWhitlock
[31] Unsworth quoted in Whitlock
[32] Palefist, quoted in Whitlock.
[33] This is still the case today, a year after these events had taken
place.
[34] Sedate, quoted in Whitlock
[35] "Newting" is a lesser form of "toading", which incapacitates
particular character, but still allows the individual user to connect
from thier host site.
[36] See the wizard's meeting in Whitlock
[37] John Unsworth, speaking as Barney, quoted in Whitlock
[38] Peter Berger's concept of the "social construction of reality"
©2005 by Keith Weston, Very Ltd.