Politicians as MUCKers

[caraig]

Now, this is a subject that will get the goat of some people, make others say 'It's so true!' or just mildly amuse the majority of people. Or it may disturb people. So take it with a grain of salt, it's not supposed to be entirely serious or anything.

First, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, MUCKer refers to someone who plays on a MUCK. A MUCK is form of MUD, which stands for Multi-User Dungeon, an online multiplayer game, using only text, that predates Everquest et al by many years. if you have ever played Zork or another text adventure, then you have a single-player version of a MUD. MUCK itself was developed from MUD; nobody is really sure what MUCK stands for, though the argument can be made that it stands for "MUCK is Unusual, Crazy, and Kooky." Which is probably a reasonably good description. A MUCK is a MUD without statistics, system, or rules. It's basically role-playing without any sort of dice-rolling or conflict resolution system.

You know, I was going to make a huge essay about this but I found it was rambling needlessly as I usually do. So instead I'll make it short and open it up to commentary:

If you look at the majority of politicians from the perspective of kids who are playing characters on a MUCK who are in positions of power and want to keep those positions safe, and keep their friends safe from the assholes in the rest of the game, and do some Cool Stuff, then it all makes a sudden weird kind of sense.

And, no, this is no sort of slam on anyone. Characters come in all types and styles, as do people. Heck, if anything, this is more of a slam on politicians, I imagine. I just found it interesting that, if you think about it, there are similarities between politicians and characters in charge of factions on MUCKs.

Man, I think I'm loosing my gift of gab. Anyway, on to the commentary. Or lack thereof. Pax.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with MUCKing is it's nothing more than "gaming by assertion." With no real mechanics available to establish competence or skill, and no ability to actually make any physical impact, all that is left to barter is emotion. Therefore, like high school (http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html), MUCKs (or at least the seven or so examples I am familiar with) degenerate into nothing more than emotion-based popularity contests.

This is politics of the most degenerate sort, where instead of the personality-less tailoring of one's image to win the votes of fringe groups, participants in MUCKs deliberately tailor their personalities to win emotion. As Graham notes in the above article,

Popularity is only partially about individual attractiveness. It's much more about alliances. To become more popular, you need to be constantly doing things that bring you close to other popular people, and nothing brings people closer than a common enemy. Like a politician who wants to distract voters from bad times at home, you can create an enemy if there isn't a real one.

In MUCKs, those who flame the most vociferously become the top dogs and bullies, and those who whine and whimper the most abjectly become the ineffective "nice" kids no one bothers. The sad thing is how accepted this completely false, empty charade is by its players.

Prevaricating for votes I can understand, if not condone -- but playing out the deceit for something as empty and valueless as typed-in false emotion is madness. Sadly, I've watched it happen repeatedly -- written communication devolves into turgid suggestions of emotion for others, which substitutes for real feelings like sincerity, courage, friendship, or love.

So at least superficially MUCKs do reflect politics well. However, as Graham later notes:

...I think the important thing about the real world is not that it's populated by adults, but that it's very large, and the things you do have real effects. That's what school, prison, and ladies-who-lunch all lack. The inhabitants of all those worlds are trapped in little bubbles where nothing they do can have more than a local effect. Naturally these societies degenerate into savagery. They have no function for their form to follow.

Add "MUCKers" to his list of folks who lack any sort of real life effects in their tiny and incestuous subcultures, and that pretty much sums up the situation. Aside from manipulating the feelings of others (whether through whining or bullying), there are no consequences for actions on MUCKs, and so the world created is about as complex as the pseudo-society described in "Lord of the Flies." Cheap post-adolescent rhetoric and the emotionally retarded are rewarded in a fashion they can't find in real life.

That's the difference between MUCKers and politicians -- politicians may be playing in a similar style of sandbox, but at least they're playing for a real, worthwhile goal.

-- Laughing Collie
Collie's Bestiary (http://www.stormtiger.com/collie)