Summary of Informal Explorer Gathering of 2007 Jan 13

Meeting Details

Location: A Beginner's Bevin in the D'ni Cavern

Time: 12:00 EST/17:00 UTC

Duration: approximately two hours thirty minutes (2:30)

Purpose: Provide a forum to gage the “Voice of the Explorer”

Transcript: The raw transcript is located at http://www.sysmango.com/files/RawMeeting.txt. An HTML version of the transcript is located at http://www.sysmango.com/node/859. The transcript is 1806 lines long.

Attendance:

The transcript shows that 67 Explorers participated in the meeting. One Explorer, Butch, acted as the facilitator for the meeting. Additional Explorers may have been present but were not represented in the recording made by the facilitator's KI.

Explorer's on the recording from the facilitator's KI:

Ambientkatz

amonre

Annie

ArthurFrayn

barker57

Bear

Blade Lakem

Butch*

Dave Mac

Device

Dovahn

Dr. August

Eleri

Erik

Firesign

Gadren

Ghaelen D'Lareh

Gilgameesh

Greypiffle

Hitana

ireenquench

Jaytee

J'iim

jimmyleg

Jinglish

Junee

Kam Uraki

kami

Kestr'l

Kiteerah

LegWer

Leonor

Lorri

Luke

Matthew Allen

MeKtonUru

Migo

Mila

mpohlman

Mystlander

Nalates

Nis'ah

Panther

pirschen43

Professor Askew

Prometheus

RayRay

Relentless

Robert the Rebuilder

Ruby O'Degee

Serena

Sheila'R

Sifr

Skellington98

sundog

Thend

tkwiggins

Tweek

Ural

Valdez

Vortmax

Ward

weeKIly Reporter

Whalyn

Whilyam

Yali

yogayoda

*facilitator

Community Notification:

The meeting was advertised to the general Explorer community via forum posts at the main Myst Online: Uru Live (MO:UL) forums (http://www.mystonline.com/ under Forums), the DRC website (http://www.drcsite.org/ under Forums) and the facilitator's website (http://www.sysmango.com/node/855). These posts were made on Wednesday night, 2007 Jan 10.

On Thursday, 2007 Jan 11, a request was made to list the meeting in the 'In Game Events' section of the MO:UL website (http://www.mystonline.com/ingame.html). This appeared to have been completed on Friday, 2007 Jan 12.

Meeting Commentary

The meeting was broken into three separate sections: Introductions, Conversation and Roundtable. This commentary is based on the transcript recorded via the facilitator's KI. With errors and non-meeting related private messages removed, the transcript is 1806 lines of text.

Introductions

During Introductions, each Explorer present was asked to say their name, when they first made their way to D'ni and any groups affiliations. This format was chosen for multiple reasons related to determining the demographic of Explorers in attendance.

The reason behind requesting each Explorer's name should be obvious and will not be discussed. It should be noted that due to the difficultly of tracking all of the Explorers in an area using the KI, Not all the Explorers present for Introductions were called upon. In the future, the facilitator suggests just asking those in attendance to introduce themselves and then open the floor for several minutes to all the KI to record the introductions. This will prevent future introductions from taking an excessive amount of time.

Additional Explorers also arrived to the meeting after Introductions had closed. Also a number of those in attendance had to leave the meeting early.

The facilitator requested the time in D'ni to help gage the experience level of Explorers in attendance. In the case of this meeting, as minimal effort was put into notifying the community of the meeting (i.e., short notice, minimal advertising, number of Explorers polled.), this data may not be as meaningful as it could be.

From a review of this section of the transcript, there appears to be representation from all segements of the Restoration timeline (Prologue to new). The transcript does suggest that some of the new Explorers stumbled onto meeting because of the location, A Beginner's Bevin, where ResEng hold orientation sessions.

The facilitator requested group affiliations to help gage the responses to questions in first section of the Conversation. This was also requested to gage how Explorers saw themselves organized today.

The initial hypothesis was that the Explorers polled would have listed organized neighborhood membership and association with non-hood Explorer groups. In fact, the majority of Explorers polled either did not list any affiliation or claimed “no affiliations.” Those that did claim an affiliation during polling asserted that they spoke for themselves, and only themselves.

Vortmax summed up the spirit of this question with the following comment:

it's really about how you consider yourself. Do you feel like part of a group, or an independant player? (transcript, line 94, 12:14:02)

The answer from the Introductions was that even in the case of group membership, most Explorers polled felt like independent explorers without strong organizational ties.

Conversation

The format of the bulk of the meeting was that of a directed conversation/brainstorming. The facilitator posed a question from the agenda to the gathering and kept time for approximately ten minutes, reminding the gathered Explorers of the question and notifying the Explorers of the time remaining at intervals during the ten minutes. The questions were not repeated in identical formats, and occasionally, emphasis was added to parts of the questions.

The questions were the product of a single Explorer, the facilitator, acting alone. They were not vetted though any group in or outside of the cavern. Several of the questions were based on assumptions that were not communicated to the Explorers polled. The intent was not to get a definitive answer to any one question, but to provoke conversation about the perceived intent of the question. To this end, the exact content and wording of each question was irrelevant. They were only to act as guides to the conversation. The intent was to provoke the Explorers to reveal how they felt about a key concept the question encompassed and spur the conversation onward. Little or no attempt was made by the facilitator to explain questions presented to the group, other than the rewording or emphasis adding that may have done during a time left notice.

Due to the open nature of the conversation, and to ensure that everyone present was able to speak, no queuing of speakers was done, and everyone was invited to speak from where they were standing.

The questions

Section 1: The Myst Online: Uru Live Community

Question: What kind of organization should the Explorers pursue inside the Cavern?

This question is lines 149 to about 300, 12:20:50-12:31:48 in the transcript.

The purpose of this question was to see how the gathered Explorers felt in general about community organization.

The conversation here was focused on the idea that there is no One True Explorer Organization. By this, the commentator means, that under the current situation, the Explorers who participated in this part of the poll do not believe that it would be feasible or prudent to attempt to roll the entire Explorer community up into one single organizational structure, unless that structure is imposed upon the Explorers by Cyan and supported by game mechanics.

Several of the Explorers participating in this question also questioned the wisdom of attempting to have One True Explorer Organization or a formal system of mutually exclusive guilds. This group of Explorers seemed to want to continue the convention of having all Explorers have the opportunity to join, interact and participate with as many of the existing organizations as possible, to the level of multiple memberships. There was a strong rejection of any synthetic organization and a strong desire expressed for a continuation of the existing organic and open non-organizational structure. While not mentioned specifically in the transcript, Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) style of organization, without restriction on membership based on other memberships, seemed most acceptable.

There was also strong reservations expressed about the drama caused by leadership, and the desire for equality among, not only Explorers, but paying customers of the GameTap service.

Question: Should we be organized around neighborhoods or non-neighborhood organizations as the basis of a community wide organization, should one exist?

This question is lines 301 to about 415, 12:31:50-12:40:14 in the transcript.

The purpose of this question was to explore gathered Explorers' feelings about the intersection of neighborhoods and Explorer organizations. This question contained an unvoiced assumption that neighborhoods may play a role in Explorer organization. In the question, non-neighborhood organizations were not defined to allow for a free interpretation by the Explorers being polled.

The consensus of the Explorers polled was that the assumption of this question was flawed. The idea of One True Explorer Organization to roll up the entire Explorer community goes against principle.

Question: Under any organization, including none, how do we represent and balance the contribution of large and small groups alike?

This question is lines 429 to 562, 12:41:27-12:50:05 of the transcript.

This purpose of this question was to see how the Explorers gathered felt about a “tyranny of the majority” or a “tyranny of the elite” in the Explorer community. This is an acknowledgment of the important roles that the groups in the Explorer community have, are, and will play in the success of the community. This seems particularly pertinent given the groups feelings about the need to maintain an organic open organizational (or non-organizational) structure. The original wording from the agenda was changed by facilitator. In the original wording, the focus was on neighborhoods, but given the feels that the previous questions were flawed, the change in focus seemed justified and actually more appropriate and engaging.

Early during the time allocated, the Explorers in the poll asked for a clarification of this question and one interpretation was provided by the facilitator:

How do we keep larger groups from walking over smaller ones? (transcript line 441,12:42:27 )

Other interpretations are possible.

What seemed curious is that, at first, the conversation seemed to suggest the creation of a community-wide organization body. This stands is stark contrast to the pronouncements of “no organization” in the previous questions. The “no organization” sentiment does make a comeback by the end of the question.

This commentator reads this section of the transcript as follows: the Explorer community is currently balanced. The major force behind that balance is the consensus that exists between the various individuals. Most of the groups are made up of individuals who want to ensure their freedom to move around freely to form new groups and have those groups pursue whatever goals seem appropriate.

The Explorers participating in this question did seem to understand that the risk of one group overwhelming smaller groups is present, but seemed to believe that the community consensus was actually a fairly strong safeguard to manipulation to the community agenda to exclude individuals or organizations not in the mainstream.

Question: How do we include unaligned and new Explorers who are willing to participate in community-wide events?

This question is about lines 563 to 731, 12:50:05-12:59:58 in the transcript.

Where the previous question acknowledged the contribution of the various groups in the community, this question tries to gage how the gathered Explorers feel about the potential contribution to the community of Explorers who have chosen a path of “alone,” and the potential contribution of new Explorers who may not be integrated into the community landscape. The question was also presented to gage the feeling of the Explorers polled on community-wide events.

After another slow start, the polled Explorers appeared to agree that there was already a extremely low barrier of entry for almost any Explorer to participate in almost any community event irregardless of experience in either D'ni or the community. The general consensus was that all Explorers could and would continue to engage each other with honesty and respect. This would quickly build the trust required to integrate any Explorer–old, new or otherwise–reasonably quickly in the the community whole.

There were reservations expressed about the current amount of dependence on forums and other websites for the communication of information. There was a strong preference by all who participated in this question to encourage more interaction between Explorers in the cavern. This could be summed up by the multiple recommendations by the polled Explorers to increase the use of imagers and other facilities in the city and cavern. The Explorers seemed extremely interested in increasing the number and improving the placement of imagers throughout the city and additional capability for the leaving of notices on public imagers and and other in game props in the city.

Section 2: Playing Roles–In Cavern, Out of Cavern and Role Playing in D'ni

This section was an attempt to see how the gathered Explorers felt about the different styles of playing MO:UL and the implications of having the multiple styles occurring simultaneously in public and semi-public locations.

There standards document posted by the DRCL on this topic on the various forums.

For the purposes of this section, the community consensus definitions were used for the play styles.

In Cavern (IC): Playing MO:UL in a You-Are-You, in the cavern style. The player is performing as an extension of themselves, but with the modification to reality that D'ni is real. Also called In Character.

Out of Cavern (OOC): Playing MO:UL as merely a game. There is no suspension of disbelieve or adjustment of frame of reference. Players act as if You-Are-You, sitting at a computer playing a game. Also called Out of Character.

Role Playing (RP): According to the standards document, assuming the role of some other character not related to the player. Player and character are very different entities from one another with separate knowledge, experience, capabilities and attitudes. This is similar to the IC definition, but goes further. You-are-Someone else. Playing in this style is a choice.

There does appear to be some contention in the community over RP, IC and OOC and the interaction of the three styles during events. Under certain circumstances, a single avatar may move freely between the different play styles in reaction to events in the story and personal preference and interaction with other players. There may also be additional operational definitions used by subsets of the community.

The agenda posted for the meeting failed to make reference of the RP-style of play, and this was corrected by the facilitator during the meeting after a correction was offered by the Explores.

Question: How should we balance the desire of individuals and groups to play the game different ways, given the ways Explores interact with the cavern?

This question is lines 758 to about 907, 13:01:31-13:12:08 in the transcript.

The purpose of this question was to see how Explorers felt about the interaction of the different types of play style.

A direct quote from the transcript seems to sum up the Explorers' attitudes best (lines 765-784):

(01/13 13:01:54) Dave Mac: R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
(01/13 13:01:56) Ghaelen D'Lareh: yes, respect
(01/13 13:01:58) Hitana: lol
(01/13 13:01:59) Sifr: agree completely
(01/13 13:01:59) Vortmax: And that's from ALL SIDES.
(01/13 13:02:04) Whilyam: Indeed.
(01/13 13:02:09) amonre agrees
(01/13 13:02:09) Ghaelen D'Lareh: for everyone, both ways, all perspectives
(01/13 13:02:13) yogayoda: sock it to me
(01/13 13:02:14) Nalates: Wow! We agree on something.
(01/13 13:02:16) Dave Mac: I haven't noticed a big issue with that one.
(01/13 13:02:21) ireenquench: Willingness to accept others peferred play style in cavern and on the forums
(01/13 13:02:22) Gadren: and probably most importantly...dont' be rude to people and try to cover it up with ICness or saying "why are you taking me so seriously? it's just a game!"
(01/13 13:02:22) weeKIly Reporter: That was a quick and decisive answer
(01/13 13:02:24) Hitana: you do we have to choose again for IC OE OCC?
(01/13 13:02:24) Sifr: i suppose we already do that... we accept the DRC even if we're not playing strictly IC
(01/13 13:02:28) Whalyn: I have, Dave.
(01/13 13:02:34) Hitana: or
(01/13 13:02:36) Thend: We switch back and forth, as many of us have always done, though with perhaps bringing things together with an In-Cavern perspective, no matter the subject involved
(01/13 13:02:37) Whilyam: This should go beyond IC OOC to all areas. Be respectful.

This block shows that the consensus was that play style interaction was best managed by each Explorer respecting the choices of others they happen to interact with in the game settings.

The facilitator tried to expand on this by questioning the nature of respect. The following edited block is enlightening.

(01/13 13:03:08) Butch: But what is respect in this matter?
...
(01/13 13:03:33) ireenquench: Willingness to step outside of your own play style just a little bit in emergency situations and especially with newcomers..... but also willingness to accept that another may not want to step out of theirs
...
(01/13 13:03:51) Ghaelen D'Lareh: and don't go around correcting IC/OOC statements
(01/13 13:03:55) weeKIly Reporter: We should respect others right to nplay a game they pay for on a monthly basis they way they want to
(01/13 13:03:59) Ruby O'Degee: If we support one another without being competitive or jealous bunches of stuff would get done around here

This commentator believes that on the issue of differing play styles, the group strongly supported a position that individual players should do what they can to respect the play style choice of others. Additionally, even the strictest RP player would choose to occasionally switch to another play style to help and support others in the community and the needs of events.

The Explorers who participated in this section all seemed to agree with the idea that RP and IC are going to happen given the nature of how the story of the Restoration is being presented by Cyan. The DRC, Cate Alexander, Yeesha are all elements of that story. Individual Explorers should have the right to interact with that story in any way that they see fit, as long as it respects to rights of others to experience the story differently.

There was a mention made of non-canon, user-driven IC and RP events, but there was not an expansion of that element during the meeting. Only comments that respect means that those participating in non-canon story events should attempt to limit the confusion their actions may cause by those who happen to be nearby.

There is a place in the game for all styles.

Question: What changes did Explorers want to see in communication of story events, given the mix of IC, OOC and RP styles?

This is lines 908 to about 1020, 13:12:10-13:20:13 in the transcript.

The purpose of this question was also part of the basis of the question on engaging new and unaligned Explorers. The focus in this wording was to see how the conversation of play styles still fresh in the meeting would color the previously presented opinions.

Again, the consensus was that as long as players respect the differences in the community, then the presentation of information can continue as it has, mostly via word of mouth with support from forums and websites. At least one Explorer wished that the DRC website would again be used as a vehicle in the setting of the story.

Section 3: The DRC Liaisons

The Explorer Liaisons to the DRC (DRCL) are members of the Explorer community that were originally selected via election by the community at the prompting of a member of the DRC, Marie Sutherland, during a visit to a public neighborhood back in 2006. The role of the DRCL was never fully defined by either DRC or Cyan, but appears to have been originally intended as an attempt to start bringing the UntilUru community back to the story.

To provide some context to this meeting, the meeting occurs between the resignation of CAGrayWolf and Tweek from their roles as DRCL.

In the original agenda, discussions of the early termination of the current DRCL six month term or removal of the DRCL role by the Explorer community were declared off limits. It should be noted that no attempt was made to actually enforce that restriction in the meeting, other than a reminder on line 1035(13:21:03) of the transcript. It should also be noted that at least once, the DRC or Cate Alexander has suggested that the DRCL exist at the pleasure of the DRCL and or Cate Alexander and those entities have considered removing their mandate for the existence of the DRCL.

On the topic of the DRCL, the overall Explorer community seems mixed. It was one conversation on the early termination of the current six month term that triggered the facilitator to arrange this meeting.

At one point, all the active DRCL and their selection for replacing CAGreyWolf were present during the meeting.

The question in this section assume that the DRCL will be retained as a role in the community and conduct the next scheduled election in April of 2007. Should this not occur due to any reasons, the questions may provide additional insight into community organizational needs and IC, OOC and RP feelings.

Question: How can we better organize Explorers to vote at the end of the current term?

This question is lines 1052 to about 1200, 13:21:42-13:30:46 in the transcript.

This question is an attempt to recognize that while several members of the community have done incredible things in arranging the selection method for the community, not limited to soliciting and managing nominations for candidates and providing the needed arrangements for a community vote, the community as a whole does seem to have difficulty approaching the elections.

This commentator also believes that given the relatively short term of DRCL, six months, there is a need to maintain the momentum of the community after an election event, or any other community focusing event.

The conversation on this issue focused around the topic of if the community to going to organize another election for Explorers, additional support from the DRC and Cyan really is required.

The group seemed to desire a better definition of what the DRCL role to know what individuals would be running for voting for. More than once, the lack of a definition of DRCL role beyond limited role the current DRCL have made of it, was given as the backing of a suggestion that community selection of Liaisons was the wrong approach and they should be selected by the DRC. It was even suggested that some kind of message needs to be sent to Cyan to underscore this situation.

Additional support in the organization of an election was desired in terms of communication to the now growing base of Explorers. ResEng orientations, classroom and other imager postings, additional collateral in the city and neighborhoods were all presented as important supplements to the existing word of mouth and website advertising. The most significant supplemental support would be the development of a election mechanism in the cavern.

Question: What questions should we be asking candidates for DRC Liaison, assuming they have only an IC focus?

This question is lines 1098 to about 1326, 13:30:33-13:40:35 in the transcript.

This question was a recognition that the DRCL are, in fact, an interface for the community to an IC entity, the DRC. Should Cyan allow the DRCL to continue, but with the provision of an IC-only focus, what did this group of Explorers want know about candidates position on various IC issues. That being said, it was not expected that an actual list of questions would be generated.

The conversation began as a restatement of the already voiced desire for a definition of the role of DRCL by the appropriate entities. Also re-voiced was a desire for more support for providing material and holding any election events inside the cavern.

The majority of the conversation was around the desire of this group to allow for a free flow of information, not only from the DRC and Cate Alexander, but also TO the DRC of Explorer IC concerns.

This commentator suggests that all Explorers read this section of the transcript, if no other.

Question: What questions should we be asking candidates for DRC Liaison, assuming they a mix IC and OOC focus?

This question is lines 1326 to about 1428, 13:40:35-13:50:17 in the transcript.

This question is a recognition among that the role DRCL has been more than just an IC role. This is apparent in their arranging and facilitating/moderating a number of town hall style meetings with entities that do not exist as IC entities. Also, because of the mix of play styles in the community, even the strictest IC DRCL would have to communicate with strictly OOC Explorers with no interest in an IC-focus. Again, no expectation of specific questions was made.

There was a recognition among the gathered Explorers that a source of frustration for current DRCL has been with Explorers in an OOC capacity. This seemed to be associated with the lack of a clear definition of the DRCL role.

Again, this section of the transcript is very interesting.

Question: How can we get more Explorers involved in the next election, as candidates, voters and anything else that an election needs?

This question is lines 1428 to about 1560, 13:50:17-14:00:24 in the transcript.

The purpose of this question was to see what kind of approaches that could or should be taken to engage more Explorers in the process of a DRCL election. This conversation could also be mined for suggestions on any events in general. Part of the intent was to see what the Explorers thought needed to be done beyond just advertising the existence of the DRCL role and an election.

The conversation was a restatement of the suggestions under the previous questions. More DRC support, a definition of the DRCL role, use of classrooms and imagers and an a vote in the cavern.

In the case of an out of cavern voting mechanism, the suggestion of listing the election as an Out of Cavern event on the appropriate part of the MO:UL website was presented.

Roundtable

At the end of the questions, each Explorer present was asked if they wanted to make a short statement about anything. This was done in an attempt to provide everyone present with the opportunity to have their feelings known an any topic. The facilitator worked from the bottom of his KI list to the top asking everyone to make a statement in turn.

The roundtable discussion was lines 1560 to 1806, 14:00:24-14:24:59 in the transcript.

Action Items

Other than getting the chatlog and this commentary posted to the where the Explorer community can see and discus the meeting, there were no action items presented.

Follow Up and Future Meetings

The format of this meeting was an experiment in communication on having a this type of meeting in the cavern using the game mechanics. Any feedback on the meeting and its format would be greatly appreciated.

Lessons Learned

A different format for introductions should be determined. Asking each person to introduce themselves individually took way too much itme.

The meeting may have been too long and covered to large a variety of topics. Shorter meetings may be required.

There was no support in the meeting for non-English speaking Explorers to participate. Should this format be leveraged by any other meetings, this should be taken into account. The same holds for the scheduling of the meeting.

From Marten via the DRC website: Explain the format of the meeting better to participants so they understand that it will be question, open conversation, stop flag. Make sure participants are aware that the transcript and summary will be made avilable as quickly as possible.

From Marten via the DRC website: Provide HTML version of transcript with anchors at the line numbers referenced in the summary.

From dotty at MO:UL: Include timestamps in the summary to make finding locations in the raw transcript easier.