Monday, January 19, 2004
Here's the Wired article.
Now, as far as pop-ups go, I find that I'm on the fence and oddly sympathetic. I, personally, HATE pop-ups and cheerfully use my own blocker to its fullest capacity. On the other hand, I patronize many free web sites, enjoy their content, and understand that they must rely on advertising revenue to stay alive. They often complain that they are having a hard time staying afloat with the decline of advertising dollars. I realize this makes me something of a hypocrite, because I want their content to survive but I do not ever read their ads. Nevertheless, I understand the issue.
But bulk email is a whole 'nother matter. Hey big corporations, you want to bulk email me but can't get past my spam filter? Hang on, let me play a sad song on my virtual violin.
Okay, enough of that. To all bulk emailers who didn't get my permission, I say "Fuck you!" I am NOT obligated to read your ads. You aren't offering me anything of value. I pay monthly fees for my internet connection, email provider, and web hosting provider. You don't give a dime to me OR to any of them, and I'm not obligated to read anything from you.
In my view, there is no such thing as a legitimate reason to send me advertisements that I didn't ask for. And I don't care whether you're Coca-Cola or Taiwan's local "herbal viagra" dealer -- if I WANT information on your product, I will seek out your web site. And if you think your ads will tell me something I want to know, you can bloody well pay the rate that you need to to get a billboard, newspaper or television ad. Don't ask me to spend MY extra time using a service that *I* pay for so that you can worm your way into my consciousness.
I strongly favor anti-spam measures that require the sender to correctly identify themselves. And it's not because I care about separating the "legitimate" ads from the non-legitimate ones. It's because I long for a day when I will never see fifteen messages with the same header, each coming from a different variation of "firstname.lastname@example.org". When a company is required to put just one single, verifiable address on all their junk, it will make it that much easier for me to block their ass. Nyah.
Friday, January 09, 2004
In any multi-player game, feedback is critical to a good gaming experience. You can either have positive feedback, in which players who start winning get an advantage which quickly becomes insurmountable; or you can have negative feedback, in which players who start losing get a little boost to keep the game interesting.
Monopoly is a game with strong positive feedback, and it's no coincidence that it's a horrible game. Once you have a certain amount of property, the game is effectively over, even though it usually takes hours to play out to conclusion. The more property you own, the more money you swipe from other players; therefore the more property and hotels you can buy; therefore the more money you get. It's an amplifying cycle, and it doesn't end until all but one player is bankrupted. Once you start losing, you can't really recover.
The question at hand is, do we want our society to work like that or don't we? Good game designers are often forced to compensate for this issue by adding negative feedback, some way to artificially keep the losing player from getting crushed right at the beginning of the game.
Another example is online roleplaying games. One of the biggest problems that MMORPG designers have to face is what to do about players who want to kill other players. Sometimes a simple advantage starting out, like beginning the game a month before everyone else, or having one powerful friend, is enough to turn into a snowballing advantage. If the game allows it, it's possible for a powerful bully to beat the crap out of newbie players, and there's not a thing they can do about it. And if newbies get regularly beaten down, they may be forced out of the game from sheer frustration.
So as I said, designing a successful government is a lot like designing a good game. The goals are similar. The ultimate goal of a game is to be filled with players who are having fun. The ultimate goal of a society is to be filled with citizens who are happy.
Without any rules or infrastructure, a game is a state of nature. It can easily degenerate into a handful of uber-powerful players terrorizing the much larger number of weaker players. It may be possible for the weaker players to band together and fight back, but only if the game rules are designed to make that plausible. Again, the game seriously needs an element of negative feedback to make it work.
Society is the same. Absent some restrictions on super powerful players, it's possible for one person who begins with an advantage (i.e., born to wealthy parents) to become a warlord who can only be toppled by an extreme force of military power. Warlords aren't necessarily much better players overall; it's just that in a system with no negative feedback to adjust inequality, small advantages can quickly balloon up into huge power concentrations.
This isn't speculation; read some medieval history. This is, in practice, the way it has happened historically.
When armchair political analysts utter emotionally charged phrases like "Those liberals just want to take all your money and spend it as they see fit!" I can't help feeling that they are being naive. Something more complicated is going on. In a game, there would be no point in having no spending decisions, because having choices is part of what makes a game fun; in a similar way, any society that made all your spending decisions for you would be an oppressive tyranny. But what "those liberals" do support is a form of negative feedback. A way to prevent small inequalities from exploding into a new situation where we repeat the days of monarchs and serfs.
You have to respect the founding fathers for being top notch game designers. They very clearly outlined what the people in power may and may not do. They designed a system under which individual branches of government are prevented from getting absolute power. They even designed a means by which patches may, on rare occasions, be installed to the game -- a way to change the structure of the government if parts of it becomes obsolete.
Fact is, it's impossible to prevent a small number of people from gaining a huge amount of power unless good rules are written into the game. If you abolish those rules, it may feel like having "more freedom" for a little while, but that would only last until a new warlord took advantage of the lack of rules and bought and/or conquered all other players.