I'm not sure how much I like watching old classes as part of a learning experience. I have done it a few times, and overall, it seems a little problematic.
The first time I really got into watching old class footage was when I was a first year law student taking copyright law. It was an extremely tough class, and the professor made it clear that anything was fair game, since the entire class was recorded. I watched a good 6 or 7 hours of those lectures, at least. I would play them when I worked on other things, so I could listen in.
I did really well in that class, but just knowing that the resource was there made me feel like I HAD to take advantage of it, whether or not I wanted to. This was law school, so there is a competitiveness that isn't in every program, but I knew that is others were using the materials, i sure as hell had to.
Info and control is a little different, and I think it's because I'm not actually watching the classes I was in, I'm watching the classes that came before me. And I don't really like it for 2 reasons that ties into one another. I think that the professors are using it in an effort to not have to go over the material again; I can see why they would do this, but I don't like it because it presumes that the captured state of the previous discussion is the only one really worth addressing. I'm interested in what the class last year had to say about cybernetic systems. I'm not willing to accept that that's all there is to be said on the subject, or that it's not important to go over it again. Professors often say that they learn alongside the class; i take this statement with varying degrees of credulity based upon the person, but having us use a previous classes discussion to learn about the material seems to be pretty solid evidence that the professors think that they got that part nailed.
Now this can be a really GOOD thing. There's no reason to have to teach people alchemy so you can teach them physics and chemistry: sometimes precedents can be built off and then greater things can be accomplished. And I think that's what the professors are trying to do. However, I'm not sure that everyone is on the same page with this: I haven't watched every lecture, and I'm sure that everyone else hasn't , so it's not like we're building on a very solid foundation...
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Master's Tools, or, my first week in Info and Control
Chances are that if you've done any serious work on virtual worlds or in cyberlaw, you've come across Julian Dibble's article "A Rape in Cyberspace." There's a lot in that article, and while most of the comment's I've read have been directed at the nature of anonymous internet speech and the avatar/actor relationship, I've been fascinated with two things this time around: examining the way the rape was dealt with from a governance standpoint, and a t-shirt that one of the characters was wearing during the "trial" of Mr. Bungle, the attacker.
I won't get into the article itself, if you want to read it, you can find it at Julian Dibble's webpage. It's highly recommended reading if you have any interest in the interwebz, or virtual worlds, or cyberlaw; it's graphic, as the title might imply.
Anyway, back to the first point that interested me: the way that the crime was dealt with. Some time previously to the attacks, the programmers behind LambdaMOO, the word in which the crime was committed, had decided that they were no longer going to govern player activities. While formerly, the programmers, "wizards" as they were called, would take it upon themselves to adjudicate disputes, deal with disruptive players, and generally rule the virtual world. At some point, likely tired of the burden of command, they declared that the community would have to govern itself. In the words of the arch wizard Haakon, "LambdaMOO would just have to grow up and solve its problems on its own."
This was a controversial idea, but one which the community seemed willing to accept. And things seemed to be working. When Mr. Bungle was brought before the community to face sanctions for his actions, there was a spirited debate as to what his fate should be. When the community finally finished talking, it appeared that Mr. Bungle was going to be spared; whatever rage his actions has bred, it was spent, and he was spared exile.
That is, until one of the wizards decided to act unilaterally and zap him.
Now, toading, the name for removing a player from the world, was not an outrageous punishment for someone like Mr. Bungle. But it was outrageous from a governance standpoint. Toading Mr. B was like the government deciding to execute someone after a jury had found them not guilty. While it wasn't really that big of a deal, as nobody was killed, and the person behind Mr. B soon came back as another avatar, it does show how tricky governance can be when there are individuals with such a monopoly on power that they can do such a thing.
The second point of interest, which does, to some degree, relate to the first point, was this awesome shirt someone was wearing. It said, "Even if you can't tear down the master's house with the master's tools, it's a hell of a place to start." I want that shirt. I've been thinking about it for days now.
I won't get into the article itself, if you want to read it, you can find it at Julian Dibble's webpage. It's highly recommended reading if you have any interest in the interwebz, or virtual worlds, or cyberlaw; it's graphic, as the title might imply.
Anyway, back to the first point that interested me: the way that the crime was dealt with. Some time previously to the attacks, the programmers behind LambdaMOO, the word in which the crime was committed, had decided that they were no longer going to govern player activities. While formerly, the programmers, "wizards" as they were called, would take it upon themselves to adjudicate disputes, deal with disruptive players, and generally rule the virtual world. At some point, likely tired of the burden of command, they declared that the community would have to govern itself. In the words of the arch wizard Haakon, "LambdaMOO would just have to grow up and solve its problems on its own."
This was a controversial idea, but one which the community seemed willing to accept. And things seemed to be working. When Mr. Bungle was brought before the community to face sanctions for his actions, there was a spirited debate as to what his fate should be. When the community finally finished talking, it appeared that Mr. Bungle was going to be spared; whatever rage his actions has bred, it was spent, and he was spared exile.
That is, until one of the wizards decided to act unilaterally and zap him.
Now, toading, the name for removing a player from the world, was not an outrageous punishment for someone like Mr. Bungle. But it was outrageous from a governance standpoint. Toading Mr. B was like the government deciding to execute someone after a jury had found them not guilty. While it wasn't really that big of a deal, as nobody was killed, and the person behind Mr. B soon came back as another avatar, it does show how tricky governance can be when there are individuals with such a monopoly on power that they can do such a thing.
The second point of interest, which does, to some degree, relate to the first point, was this awesome shirt someone was wearing. It said, "Even if you can't tear down the master's house with the master's tools, it's a hell of a place to start." I want that shirt. I've been thinking about it for days now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)