THE BODEGA DIALOGUES, PART III: CONTRACT DISPUTES AND GRIEFING THE GRIEFER

An extended in-world dialog on the ideas provoked by online worlds, with philosopher Urizenus Sklar and the Thinkers. Full context here, part two here.

In part three, we discuss social contract theory, utopia, and game theory in relation to understanding in-world behavior, especially griefing and socialization.

Hamlet Linden: I'm trying to think of a social contract theory where social disapproval is the essential element of forming rules and establishing order.

Urizenus Sklar: Hamlet, you might find something in Chinese political philosophy.

HL: My sense is Chinese emphasis is on duty or conformity, but here, we're talking more about, I dunno, being disliked as a means of keeping people in line.

Jinny Fonzarelli: People here are more like they are in real life because the social constraints here are much like real life. We can "see" each other.

HL: I wrote an entry awhile back mentioning social contracts, because when people move from MMOG to MMOG, it sorta reminded me of Rawl's original state, or whatever he called it [actually, "original position" - WJA], where we're abstractly negotiating the ideal society.

US: I wish people thought of it that way…

JF: I think a lot of people see Second Life as a chance to build something Utopic... is that a word?

US: Well... utopian, huh? I think it's OK to be utopian as long as you don't expect it to last. Hakim Bey was right about that much.

JF: Uri, I think such an attitude would prevent utopia!

US: Mmm, not sure we want our utopias to be permanent.

HL: [T]here seems to be a multitude of utopias being tried out, in here.

JF [laughing]: "In my fathers house there are many manions."

HL: Well, that's what Nozick would say. That the utopian society is one that allows and/or encourages a multitude of diverse attempts at utopia, without infringing on others' concept of it.

US: As opposed to Thomas More's, where every damn place was the same.

HL: If you go from sim to sim, there's a huge range of what people define as the good society.

JF [chuckling]: Like Jessie...

US: What I like about the Hakim Bey thing, though, is the idea that utopias are just temporary zones. That appear in cracks in the web.

JF: Yeah, utopia should be dynamic.

US: And people can enjoy them for a while before The Man finds them and shuts them down.

HL: We haven't seen much of that in Second Life, I think.

US: Well, "The Man" might be outside of the Linden universe.

JF: In theory, though, Linden Lab would shut down something that was across "the line". So they do have capacity to be The Man.

HL: Wanna talk game theory, Urizenus? How do you apply it here?

US: I've seen some interesting stuff. I'm reading a paper now by a grad student somewhere -- Irvine, I think-- who models two different kinds of game theoretic strategies. Strategy one is Hobbesian. You anticipate that the other guy is going to screw you over, so you strategize defensively. The other strategy is Lockean. The Lockean strategy is one of assurance-- you assume the other guy doesn't want war.

OK, what happens when you mix the strategies and allow dynamic updating, so that people can revise their strategies in response to how well they are working?

Baccara Rhodes: But why would we do that here? This isn't about winning and losing.

US: Well, the models I've seen show that it takes only a few Hobbesians to turn the whole grid Hobbesian. It's a way of showing that a few bad apples...

BR: I disagree with you. Can I explain why?

US: Sure.

BR: Here we have certainly had people who try to take advantage of any crack in the system. Whether it's griefing or land development, etc. And the truth is, they almost always fizzle out for one reason or another. Now I feel a bit qualified to say that, because I have been here watching very carefully and my friends and I are all pretty successful players, wouldn't you say Hamlet?

HL: Why yes I would!

BR: But we see literally hundreds [of exploiters] fall by the wayside. When they find out that Second Life is a bit different, [that] you cannot merely will your ways into being here. Even the ones who come in now and "buy" money.

HL: Why is that, Baccara? Because of the social disapproval?

BR: I believe so, Hamlet.

JF: I have tried to set up discussion groups online with forums and stuff... and they all fizzled out within a week. This I think is because they're all used to a Hobbesian, agressive chat environment. Whereas here... we're not. So the Thinkers have lasted.

US: One factor is whether the griefers are easily identified and marginalized.

BR: I think that social approval has proved very important here.

JF: Also not being able to change name at will helps.

BR: For the same reason, social events take on a big meaning, much more so than in other games. They mean something.

US: See, it's going to be very interesting to see why social pressure works here but didn't work on [another online world]. In fact, the griefers [there] seemed to crave the disapproval.

BR: I can tell you why. People popped in and out of characters very quickly. Here they stay in one persona. You can always transfer money [to a new account's character]. But a lot can be lost in a transfer.

US: That's very true.

JF: If Jinny F. screws up, I'm stuck with it, unless I spend [on creating] another [account]. You're stuck with your name unless you pay more cash. Something most wouldn't want to do.

US: There was a game theory study of this very issue, by an economist at Rutgers-- it was on the social cost of cheap pseudonyms. The claim was that when it is too easy to recreate, people introduce hazing to raise the economic cost of recreating [a character].

BR: Let me raise an interesting point for you, Uri. There are many players, myself included, who are incredibly busy here in this Second Life. So much that it is almost impossible to fade into the background or be alone without [receiving] IMs and [chat]. I am not complaining, it's the old "Be careful what you wish for". But where else would you say that a society is so strong that players have to have another identity, in order to just be alone a bit?

US: I had six [Instant Message] windows open as soon as I went in-game.

BR: Six. Penny ante. Try fifteen-twenty sometime.

US [laughing]: I'm small-time and anti-social.

Ulrika Zugzwang: Wow. I'm a loser. [chuckles]

BR: NO. You probably don't own a business. That makes the difference, I think.

US: Well look, we do this in real life too, escaping... We go [to a] place where no one knows us, we turn off our cell phones...

BR: But now we need escapes from the escape.