# Talker-ization of MOOs

kmp@harlequin.com (kmp@harlequin.com)
Wed, 17 May 1995 11:58:00 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

        From: <aprile%dsi.unimi.it@yggdrasil.com>
        Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:00 EDT

        The subject line says it all <g>: how do you keep your MOO from
        turning into a talker ?

        The symptom of talkerization is: about 60% of the logged on users
        simply stay in room, usually the default .home . No matter
        how many areas you design, they just stay there.

    If you're getting 40% using your MOO for what you intended, I bet you're
    doing better than many...

        So, do you have similar problems ? And, how do you solve them ?

    I think you need to make it clear to your users that either you are there
    to please them or they are there to please you.  If you are there to
    please them, then what you describe is not a problem.  If they are there
    to please you, then you should tell them to either get their act in gear
    or you will dump them all and find a new crop of people who don't waste
    the facilities.

    Well, ok, so maybe it's not as black-and-white as that.  But it's useful
    to think in those terms because when you make an organization that admits
    free will, you have to ask the question, who is responsible to whom?

    You sound like a parent who has raised a kid who has turned out not to be
    what was intended, and who rather than accepting the kid wants to change
    it.  People come to MOOs thinking they are places to settle and do as they
    please--if you don't do something to disabuse them of this notion, and to
    help them see that it's you, not them, that must be pleased, you shouldn't
    be surprised by the default.

    If you have advertised your place as one where people can come do as they
    please, and they have done so but you don't like it, then maybe you've
    just plain misled people (and/or yourself) and it's time to confront that.

    If you have advertised your place as having a specific charter, then
    either your charter is or is not being met--if it is, and people are also
    getting in some fun on the side, then what does it matter?

    If your charter isn't being met, then it's time to talk to your population
    about how it's going to go away if things don't change.  (If the charter
    isn't being met and the system isn't going to go away as a result, then I
    suggest you reexamine your concept of charter because it doesn't sound
    consistent with reality.  I'm suspicious of stated minimums which when
    reach reveal that things could really get worse.)

    I think there is an extraordinary lot of interesting stuff you can learn
    from people who have advanced technology but don't want to use it.  I
    don't think these people are bad data--I think computer science is often
    confused about what it should be striving for.  If technology is not used
    for the purpose of making people happy, then what IS it for?  If you offer
    people certain technology, and they say their life is happier without it,
    then why no try to learn from that what it is that makes them happy and
    why, rather than assuming it's them that's misusing what you've offered.
    If someone gave you a car with square wheels and told you about how
    smoothly it would glide down the road, would you buy it because it was
    "new technology" or would you critically examine it in light of your
    personal needs?  Would you be broken or the person who had made the
    technology.  Would the right thing for him be to reexamine the product or
    to figure out how to send you to retraining.

    The universally compelling thing about MOOs for their users is that they
    permit communication.  But the nature of the communication varies a lot.
    People like things that help them communicate better.  If they are
    performing plays or games, varied rooms may help.  If they are having sex,
    the room may not matter, but appropriate `toys' may.  If they are
    discussing a chemistry experiment, chart and graph technology or
    interactive modeling may help.  If they are politicking, vote counting and
    statistical analysis tools might be good.  My guess, sight unseen, is that
    you have a mismatch. e.g., you have provided chart and graph technology
    for people having sex, or that you have provided sex toys for chemists, or
    that you have not really done an in depth analysis of what your users need
    and you are hoping to just come out with things you want to build and find
    people to like them.

    In MOO, as in life, everything comes down to marketing.  And you can
    either be market-driven (figure out what the market wants and provide it)
    or missionary-oriented (figure out what you want to sell, and evangelize).
    Market-driven is traditionally easier to sell, but not always as satisfying
    to build.  Missionary-oriented technology is more satisfying to build, but
    discouraging to sell.  Being in a virtual reality instead of real reality
    doesn't change the nature of these truths.
     -kmp

    Disclaimer: This is all just my personal opinion.