1. On the internet what content is assumed to be real? Is there a specific cue that determines this or is it based on common sense?

2. If something on the internet is assumed real, what type of response is appropriate? Given the same situation on the internet as in RL, is the same response justified or even possible?

K, that was four questions, but basically only two concepts :)

I would think that because of the inacessibility of internet situations versus RL situations, that the internet seems much less real. I act differently on IRC than I would in RL. Therefore I take just about everything I read as borderline truth. It maintains a separate reality than RL.

When Brandon Vedas OD’ed on drugs on IRC, did anyone take it seriously as they might in real life? In that situation what was the appropriate response given no real world info on ripper?

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1111/1836_306/101175956/p1/article.jhtml

Yes, among other things, they provided the number for poison control and told him to call it. They looked up his domain registration information trying to find out what his phone number or name was so that someone could call his mother or an emergency number. (The information in the record was fake.) Given that there were several people online (diffusing responsibility), the others online did seem to react quite seriously.[*] One reasonable response was to try to find the real-world information associated with the person they only knew online.

[*] In a typically idiotic error, journalism about the incident focused not on the reasonable respose of people online, but on one individual who, according to reporters, seemed to be egging on “Ripper” by repeatedly saying “Ripper is a gangster!!!” That individual was a bot.

In my experience, quite often people do start with the idea that they are playing a game online and maintain an air healthy skepticism about what they come across. But over time, things start to blur (if the game is good…) and we start lose site of where the chalk circle is that we drew in our heads as the zone in which to play.

In the previous thread there seemed to be a perception that immersive games were only effective if they maintained their internal logic (their verite?) at EVERY turn, whatever the consequences in terms of the player’s behaviour and the effect on other people around the player.

I feel very uneasy about this. Playgrounds needs barriers (or edges or fences or some way for players to step out of the game) – or perhaps some area in space and time akin to what kids in the UK called ‘homey’ where you become ‘safe’ and you take time out of the game.

Perhaps RL *is* homey?!

I’m also worried that if we don’t believe in anything fully that we see and experience online, what kind of training is this for RL (if play is some form of training whic I know a lot of you out of there don’t buy…).

Do we go through RL assuming everyone is a liar and huxter and a gaemplayer until they prove otherwise?

Must stop now – starting to sound like old moral fart ;-(

I think it’s great when entertainment/art provokes people, upsets their lives a little bit. People need to be provoked. The case of the unhappy marriage is not your fault, in fact “safe” characters like Caroline, one can argue, can even help bring issues to the surface in a relationship.

The case of kid is more troubling, since kids can’t easily distinguish fiction from reality. That’s tougher to figure out how to avoid.

You wrote: Playgrounds needs barriers (or edges or fences or some way for players to step out of the game)

For most experiences, all you have to do is turn away from the screen, and you’ve stepped out of the game. IMO, that’s good enough. Now, if a game assaulted you in many other ways (phone calls, tons of email, emailing your friends, hacking into accounts, etc.) then maybe that’s going too far…

Do we go through RL assuming everyone is a liar and huxter and a gaemplayer until they prove otherwise?

If they’re online, well, yes…