The human you meet is a beautiful blonde named Heather Locklear.

If you'd like an Autograph, go to Sept. 27th.

If you prefer brunettes, go to Nov. 11th.

If you're confused by the above message go to Sept. 22nd

If you are further confused by the fact that there is no Nov. 11th, go to Nov. 10th

That was quite a strange story about a MUD. It's crazy how much emotions can be carried out in words by someone you do not even know.

Can someone explain to me why it either is or is not OK to give up your real life for a virtual life online? Like, it rubs me wrong, but I can't come up with a coherent argument against it. Am I making a false binary in the first place between real life and virtual life?

I couldn't think of how to properly phrase this in class, because I was interested by what everyone was commenting on the subject of MUDs, MOOs, chat, and roleplaying and their relationships to each other.

I think that there's a definite stigma about roleplaying, and to a degree a stigma about having a "virtual self." In the eyes of society, if you have the time to invest in such things, you must be a "nerd" or "have no life" or you're "weird." Books, movies, etc. do nothing to defeat this stigma. I certainly know that I would not admit to any kind of roleplaying.

But it must be considered, as Prof. K. brought up at the end of class, that we live in a constant state of roleplay. My professors see a different side of me than my friends. Anyone I have been in relationship with at any time certainly sees a different aspect of me than any other people see. It has less to do with the physical aspect, though that's certainly valid, than it has to do with the "side of me" that these people see. It is in fact a "virtual reality" of myself, in that it is subject to change based on the players involved, the location, and the "storyline" of what's happening.

Virtual life is just a facet of real life. I'm sure there are deep Freudian ways to explain the actions of Mr. Bungle on the LambdaMOO, but it is undeniable that whether or not these people would ever do anything like that "in real life," there is an aspect of their selves, minds, personalities that could conceive of committing the actions in the first place, even in a virtual environment. Anything you can project can only come from yourself, whatever outside influences there are. It's a principle of acting that an actor or actress will inject some of his or her own personality into the character and make them from the words of someone else into a three-dimensional being with its own words.

In response to Matt... probably the biggest problem in abandoning "real" life for "virtual" life is... well, virtual food isn't going to keep you from starving, virtual showers won't keep you clean, and I'd venture to say that no matter how many virtual miles you run, sitting on your butt "IRL" isn't going to keep you healthy.

The assertion that physicality proves that one is in 'reality' is a view full of flaws. Lots of my friends laugh at me when I say that the postal system just blows my mind. I mean, I place a tiny sheet of paper in a box, and I KNOW that someone will pick it up, others still will sort it, and it will be taken to many different facilities before it reaches its destination. However, was I ever THERE to witness this entire chain of events? No--but I believe it happened because I've been raised to believe in this magical system known as mail circulation. I call it magical cause I view it as a type of virtual reality--a reality separate from my everyday reality. (I am aware that everyone else thinks I'm insane and feels comfortable labeling mail as being a part of real-life reality...but seriously, IT'S AMAZING!)
------
Somewhat unrelated:
One thing that bothers me a lot about people's view of life is when they use the phrase "when you go into the real world..." So...is all of my life thus far considered imaginary pixy land?? I'm aware that when people refer to the "real-world," for instance, they are referring to careers and professional success. However, that is what THEY call the real-world because that's what they stress most in their lives. Some people (like me), on the other hand, call the community they've formed with friends and family their reality. It all depends on what one values most; reality seems to be wholly based on what aspect of life the definer finds most important. If MOOers happen to place a lot of importance on their characters, then so be it. It makes sense to me that they would be so upset about the cyberspace rape because the importance they have attributed to the game is so great that it is their reality.
-------
A paragraph in defense of MOOers:
Most people in class think these people are huge dorks who can't socialize with real people...well, they're playing a game. Haven't other people playing football or basketball or any other sport made that sport into their reality? People get angry about sports all the time even though they are 'just' games (for instance, my friend got so upset over a football game that he punched himself in the face...yeah, pretty dumb, in my opinion)...but that proves that games can begin to take on new realities to those involved with them. So let's all just agree that there are not two types of realities, real-world and virtual, but innumerable realities. Ignore binary oppositions for once and just accept that some things can't be defined--maybe that's the game of life.
--Wow. That last line was pretty cheesy. I feel like I should end with something around the lines of: This feel-good program was brought to you in part by PBS and other local television stations, and from viewers like you.

I think Kelly hit on a lot of important points. Most people are not very accepting of the idea of MUD's or MOO's. Especially with the advances that have been made in these fields over recent years, it is easy to imagine people spending more and more time in their own virtual world.
Games like Everquest, where the descriptions of Adventure and lambdaMOO are replaced with stunning graphics have become highly addictive.

I think the sports analogy was aptly drawn. In my view, there always needs to be some kind of balance between the real world and the virtual. On one hand, I think it's great if you go out and play sports or engage in activities in high school. On the other hand, spending time playing MUD's and MOO's should be perfectly acceptable as an outlet for fun and social interaction as well.

Im speaking from experience; in high school I played both football and ice hockey, while at the same time committed a great deal of time to Everquest. It helped that I had a few RL friends that played as well, but I considered my actions in the game close, if not equal to the actions I performed playing hockey and football. I did both for fun, and I wouldn't ever consider one less than the other.

There are no consequences in MUD's and MOO's. The consequence for bad behaviour is basically being deleted. In real life we have social responsibility, with punishment if we cross boundaries we shouldn't cross. Humans are by nature social creatures, who are meant to socialize on basis of body language, and facial expressions. The intensity of these social cues are subdued in an environment where one *winks* or does whatever one does in a MUD or MOO.

Personally, I don't think that MUD's and MOO's can be equated with sports or real life for that matter. They lack physical contact, consequences (for the most part), and seperate the players from the rest of the players. Its one thing to play sometimes, and recognize its a game. Its another thing to play like it is life, and replace normal life with MUD and MOO interactions.

I agree with Kathleen. There are SOME relationships between MUDs, MOOs, and sports, but I ultimately hold physicality above all else.

Imagine having a loved one halfway around the world. Is it at all the same as having them physically with you? No. Presence is a very important issue and is the main difference between a text relationship and a physical relationship.

Obviously feelings are "real" in any aspect of life and it is a person's choice how they want to perceive or rank their relationships. However, I think it is important to understand that text interactions cannot replace physical interactions.

I've been thinking about this for a while, trying to understand why we intuitively create a distinction between the "virtual" world and the "real" world, and why we (or maybe just I) find the nation of becoming completely engrossed in the virtual world so disquieting.

I think that it is important to remember that the MUD is just a formal system. It is a game with tokens (your character, the objects in the rooms, the rooms themselves) and rules for manipulating the tokens. The tokens only have the meaning you assign to them. This is why I don't understand all of the fuss over what happened in LambdaMOO. Your character in the MUD/MOO is a game piece. Aarseth describes them as "puppets." Mr. Bungle took his game piece and manipulated it according to the rules of the system. He took advantage of flaws inherent in the system to create a game state that other players found unappealing. Ultimately, the actions of Mr. Bungle revealed a flaw in the formulation of LambdaMOO that could be adjudicated by altering the rules of the game, and ultimately this was how the problem was solved. After all of the players were done emoting and waxing philosophic, a system administrator simply altered the rules of the game so that in the future such an abuse could not go unpunished.

This raises another important issue about the MUD. It is possible to step outside of the formal system of the MUD and change the rules of operation. You cannot do this with reality. Professor Kirschenbaum brought up the example of the Matrix as an environment that blurs the line between the "real' and the "virtual." It is true that the Matrix was a very adept simulation of the real world, but ultimately it was just another formal system. It was possible for the players to step outside of the system and manipulate the rules (to fly, create duplicates, learn kung fu instantly, etc etc). In the final movie of the trilogy, the Architect expressed his dismay at the fact that he could not create a simulation that everyone would accept. There were always people breaking out of the system and attempting to cheat the rules. You can cheat in virtual worlds, or decide to simply step away from the game but you cant cheat in real life and you can't step away from reality.

...whew