[AG-TECH] AG Lobby Policies

[Tony Rimovsky]

It seems like this discussion is similar to the tension between mud
type environments and IRC/chat type environments.

Culturally, the AG follows a mud paradigm, using virtual geography and
the concept of space as opposed to the TV channel model that IRC or
even SDR use.

Appropriate use policies fit well into the channel model.  Given no
other contextual hints, a policy is necessary to communicate purpose
and behavior norms.  IRC tends to be a total disaster because this is
almost never done or followed.  (And because people persist in feeling
the need to act like an infant!)

The AG seems better suited to use context to set up behavior norms.
If you walk into a lobby, lots of conversations are going on but none
are private and the space is loud.  Good place to meet.  Not so good
to hold an ongoing conversation.  You can place other locations like
libraries and bars along the spectrum and people generally can pick on
what the norm is based on the title or description of the space, or on
how people are using the space.

I always thought it would be cool to extend the venues concept along
the same path as moos.  Give people the tools to create their own
spaces, then let them set context based on what they create. 

I think this is what the FL is trying to do by releasing the venues
code and encouraging sites to set up their own venues.  I missed all
the presentations about VV at the retreat, but I hope there is a
transparent way to link venues together.  That takes the AG a step
past most moo enviornments and creates the potential for a virtual
world that could mirror reality.




On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 09:26:21AM -0600, Lisa Childers wrote:
> 
> As an aside, the host of the venues server sets the policy for its own
> venues, so other venues servers might have lobbies with different policies.
> Hmmm... do we need a way for social policies for a venue to be posted for
> visitors to review?
> 
> Lisa
>