Haiyan pointed out a blog post about a reputation network that’s in development by monkeymodulator for World of Warcraft, an online Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG).
What you get to rate is player behavior and characteristics, such as reliability and fun-ness. This would have been nice to have when I was playing StarCraft a couple of years ago. When you’re playing a multiplayer game online, the quality of the other people you’re playing with impacts the game as much as the game mechanics. I’m talking about quality of playing—because a bad player or newbie can make you lose an otherwise winnable game—but I’m also talking about the character of the player (in the real-world sense), taking into account whether he or she is interesting, fun, intelligent, etc.
Talking about games brings up an interesting point: tracking reputation within a game is relevant to the game experience, but is it relevant to real-world activities? What is the relationship between in-game reputations and real-world reputations? In essence they’re all reflections of you, so they’re all relevant. The difference, however, is that real-world transaction take place within one construct and set of rules, and game transactions take place within a different construct and set of rules. By entering a gaming situation, you are entering a world where the rules may be drastically different from those of the real world.
Ultimately, the hinging point or the difference between reputation in the real world and reputation in a gaming situation lies in consequences. Real-world consequences are inherently different from those of the virtual—one example, perhaps the most obvious difference, is that in-game characters may have unlimited lives. Therefore, while in-game transactions may mimic real-world transactions, because of this difference in valuation (and by valuation I mean the assessment of the consequences related to a particular action), reputation within one system (in-game) is inherently different than in another (real world). My assumption is that humans will respond differently to different rules and consequences. Therefore, a set of actions within one rule system will not necessarily reflect actions within a different rule system. For example, in many video games you kill other characters and creatures. This behavior does not translate into real-world behavior, for obvious reasons. (People who are confused by the disjunction of realities—in game and the real world—may have trouble distinguishing one rule-set from another.)
But what if one rule system were imposed in another rule system? One situation that springs to mind is Diablo II by Blizzard. One of the online gameplay modes is “hardcore mode”. As Blizzard explains:
Hardcore mode is a more challenging style of game play on Battle.net, recommended only for experts. In Hardcore mode, you live only once, meaning that if you die, your character can no longer be used.
Clearly, the addition of this rule system changes behavior simply through the addition of consequences: your hard work in developing a character can all be lost in a few moments. Suddenly, the situation shifts: reputation is meaningful because it provides important information that may mean the difference between living and dying (in the online gaming environment, of course).
This notion of consequences is one I explored in my thesis project Thimble, where I found that the notion of consequences was important to lending weight to ratings. In the case of thimble, consequences arise from your relationship with others in your local, physical community: you can’t hide from your bad behavior.