http://ludic.colophon.org/ludus/ibm-and-second-life/ "There is no greater threat to the state than the play of children." (Plato) Sun, 13 May 2007 22:57:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://ludic.colophon.org/ludus/ibm-and-second-life/comment-page-1/#comment-2 Rob Pongsajapan Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:58:40 +0000 http://ludic.colophon.org/2007/01/24/ibm-and-second-life/#comment-2 The evolution of Second Life from playful/unpredictable to the "safer" present-day community where many citizens seek to replicate real-life structures echoes the life cycle of many online communities (<acronym title="Bulletin Board Systems">BBS</acronym>es, the early Internet and the influx of 'illegitimate' AOL members, Friendster's campaign against fakesters, etc). Perhaps the "crushing" of ludic spaces results in part from a desire to create controlled environments within the larger, less constrained space. It seems like institutions seeking to enter ludic spaces usually identify what can easily be co-opted to fit within their existing culture and then create walled gardens—such as IBM's island in Second Life—where they can enforce their conventions. The question is how the surrounding community reacts to that sort of isolationism—do they wall their own ludic space off in an attempt to recapture the true playfulness they had before the arrival of the corporate types (e.g. MOOs and MUDs)? And does that walling off eventually result in the death of the virtual community, which thrived because of its openness? The evolution of Second Life from playful/unpredictable to the “safer” present-day community where many citizens seek to replicate real-life structures echoes the life cycle of many online communities (BBSes, the early Internet and the influx of ‘illegitimate’ AOL members, Friendster’s campaign against fakesters, etc). Perhaps the “crushing” of ludic spaces results in part from a desire to create controlled environments within the larger, less constrained space. It seems like institutions seeking to enter ludic spaces usually identify what can easily be co-opted to fit within their existing culture and then create walled gardens—such as IBM’s island in Second Life—where they can enforce their conventions. The question is how the surrounding community reacts to that sort of isolationism—do they wall their own ludic space off in an attempt to recapture the true playfulness they had before the arrival of the corporate types (e.g. MOOs and MUDs)? And does that walling off eventually result in the death of the virtual community, which thrived because of its openness?

]]>