Re: I mentioned DF in an article

6. What exactly does your brother do?

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for getting back to me on this. I'm going to e-mail a couple of PC game mag editors and may have follow-ups for you based on what they'd like to see. I'd also be interested in doing another piece on you and DF for a non-gaming mag, and will get back to you about that sometime this summer.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Tarn Adams <tarn.adams@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, this is what I came up with. If it contains anything usable,
whatever followups you have are cool as well.

Tarn

1. Is there a considerable difference in what you view DF to be and
how it is perceived by the fan base?

[*] There's a broad range of perceptions among the fans, but they
think roughly the same way about it as we do. I've been with the game
through all of its previous incarnations and my brother and I know
more or less what we want to do with it, so we have a pretty specific
idea of what DF is, I guess, but generally the players and I are on
the same page. Because the fortress building part of the game has
received the most emphasis, that's probably more prominent in some
fans' minds than it is for us, and some people want different things
out of the future DF than we'll be focusing on.

2. If it were to be arranged in such a way as that you were given
control of fifty qualified programmers to whom you could delegate
tasks and thereby put you in a position to quickly increase the extent
to which DF operates as a dynamic world, would you welcome such an
opportunity? Or are those "ifs" too unrealistic?

[*] I doubt I'd be able to maintain control of the project in that
situation, and I probably wouldn't be able to manage it well. There
are a number of technical skills specific to working on a group
programming project that I don't have any experience with. I guess
everybody that designs a game for a group project has to pick that
stuff up at some point, but my situation is precarious enough right
now that I wouldn't want to wreck everything. Of course, it's
unrealistic. Nobody's going to offer up a team like that. It would
be a risky investment.

3. How likely do you think it is that we'll see collaborative game
development go beyond such things as open-source versions of old games
and reach the point at which we will see revolutionary games put
together by way of online collaboration? What are the barriers to
this?

[*] There are already a number of collaborative projects that aren't
just cloning old games. People are trying new things all the time,
and a lot of them work in groups with open-source projects. I don't
know of any off the top of my head that involve a really large
collaboration, though, if that's the spirit of the question. I guess
you could consider the mass of Angband forks in that way, and some
interesting stuff has come out of that as a whole, and as far as I
know a lot of code passes back and forth between the different
projects. The modding communities that spring up around projects can
be huge. There are also game-making tools that have associated games
and communities.

For a large collaboration to somehow produce a single revolutionary
game, it seems like there'd have to be some kind of agreed-upon
framework and a unified creative vision (or you'd just be back to
forks and modding and tools again), and that's a significant barrier.
Everybody that plays games has the ideal games they imagine, and you'd
need to get together a lot of very like-minded individuals or people
willing to sacrifice creative impact to keep the collaboration
together. I guess Valve works this way, but I don't know enough about
the specifics of their process or projects to say anything. In any
case, there are always new ways of thinking and some hybrid
tool/framework/game could get more and more people working toward
something amazing without having it degenerate into mush.

4. Can the gaming industry produce something like Dwarf Fortress, or
is it likely to reform enough to do so in the foreseeable future?

[*] There are difficult lines to draw as to what the game industry is
if we are contrasting it with "independent" developers, since teams of
people with all sorts of backgrounds and relationships with publishers
exist these days, so let's assume we're talking about one of the
really big publisher-developers (EA, Activision Blizzard, one of
Microsoft's studios, Take-Two, etc.) If we ask if a game directly in
the vein of DF with its specific obsessions could come out of that
system, then I think the obstacles right now would be the aversion to
risk (which puts an emphasis on established IP) and hand-in-hand with
that is just making the game marketable (it would need graphics, for
one). I don't think the concept is fundamentally unsellable; the
product would just have to be put together well, even if would remain
with a niche audience and there are probably better choices for people
to make for their bottom line. DF is more the type of project to be
cannibalized in pieces. It's not as if the large developers are
completely mired in repetition, though. There are designers within
the industry who've had the opportunity to create their dream projects
using lots of resources relatively unfettered. One of them could
produce something similar to DF at some point, but that's not to say
it's particularly likely or that I don't want the industry's
priorities to change. I've never really hoped for that. It's one of
the reasons I write games in the first place.

Tarn

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Tarn Adams <tarn.adams@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ha ha, okay, I'll write them up tonight but let them stew another day
> or two so I make sure I'm thinking of everything I can cover. I spent
> a few hours watching Zach play PS3.
>
> Tarn
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Take your time, I'm swamped with a bunch of stuff, supposed to be writing a
>> manifesto for my project for Vanity Fair but actually sitting in a Harlem
>> basement watching someone play Xbox.
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Tarn Adams <tarn.adams@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Cool, I should have that ready within 24 hours. This was supposed to
>>> be my vacation, but it ended up being as hectic as ever. Everything's
>>> calm now, finally, for the moment anyway, so I should be able to reply
>>> to your other email as well, although the recent lull is partially due
>>> to the Bay 12 mail server crashing...
>>>
>>> Tarn
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Tarn-
>>> > Here are those interview questions I promised; I may have a couple of
>>> > follow-ups as well. Thanks again for agreeing to take a look; I may be
>>> > writing this piece for a general interest publication rather than one
>>> > geared
>>> > towards gamers, etc.
>>> > 1. Is there a considerable difference in what you view DF to be and how
>>> > it
>>> > is perceived by the fan base?
>>> > 2. If it were to be arranged in such a way as that you were given
>>> > control of
>>> > fifty qualified programmers to whom you could delegate tasks and thereby
>>> > put
>>> > you in a position to quickly increase the extent to which DF operates as
>>> > a
>>> > dynamic world, would you welcome such an opportunity? Or are those "ifs"
>>> > too
>>> > unrealistic?
>>> > 3. How likely do you think it is that we'll see collaborative game
>>> > development go beyond such things as open-source versions of old games
>>> > and
>>> > reach the point at which we will see revolutionary games put together by
>>> > way
>>> > of online collaboration? What are the barriers to this?
>>> > 4. Can the gaming industry produce something like Dwarf Fortress, or is
>>> > it
>>> > likely to reform enough to do so in the foreseeable future?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi, Tarn-
>>> >> I'll send you an invite to the Africa Development Program Google Doc.
>>> >> Note
>>> >> that this is simply a temporary means of collaboration not having
>>> >> anything
>>> >> to do with the networks themselves, which will operate under a superior
>>> >> schematic that's described in part elsewhere; in the meantime we are
>>> >> just
>>> >> using Google Docs while we wait for the software to be ready. Still,
>>> >> even
>>> >> this more uncoordinated process is interesting insomuch as that these
>>> >> are
>>> >> professionals with various skill sets who didn't know each other a week
>>> >> ago
>>> >> but whom I've been able to recruit via reddit and my own outlets,
>>> >> convince
>>> >> of the viability of this project, and then put to a particular task.
>>> >> Already, they've accomplished quite a bit (and some of it isn't
>>> >> represented
>>> >> in the Doc yet, having involved phone conversations between myself and
>>> >> a
>>> >> couple of other participants I've just recruited in the last couple of
>>> >> days).
>>> >> As for Project PM, it consists of two networks, the blogger/journalist
>>> >> network and the governing network. Both are intended to grow
>>> >> perpetually
>>> >> without declining in average quality. For instance, we start with a
>>> >> dozen
>>> >> bloggers whom I've picked out as reliable, honest, competent, etc. Each
>>> >> of
>>> >> them can bring new bloggers into the network, and so on. Eventually, of
>>> >> course, someone will bring in another blogger who is not competent or
>>> >> honest, but the only people who will initially see such contributions
>>> >> will
>>> >> be the person who foolishly brought in that blogger and those bloggers
>>> >> whom
>>> >> the blogger brought in afterwards; since contributions are only
>>> >> actually
>>> >> seen to the extent that they are pushed forward, and since the blogger
>>> >> network will be made up of relatively competent bloggers, content
>>> >> deemed to
>>> >> be poor is unlikely to make it very far into the network before more
>>> >> competent bloggers decide not to push it forward further. This dynamic
>>> >> will
>>> >> be in contrast to that of reddit and digg, in which all incoming info
>>> >> is
>>> >> treated equally and then subject to a vote by just any person who
>>> >> chooses to
>>> >> vote, and the results are decidedly mixed. There is more to it than
>>> >> that,
>>> >> and my upcoming manifesto should provide a more concise summary of the
>>> >> benefits of the system; I'll send you a link when it goes up on Vanity
>>> >> Fair
>>> >> or Wired or wherever, probably before the end of the month.
>>> >> Regarding your question of how this is intended to relate to the
>>> >> orthodox
>>> >> media and whether our intention is to have them pick up our stories:
>>> >> the
>>> >> main goal is to create the best means of evaluating information such
>>> >> that
>>> >> the best rises to the "top;" users have a widget that will
>>> >> automatically
>>> >> display any content that is pushed forward a certain number of times.
>>> >> The
>>> >> content they're seeing has been chosen by an unusually erudite array of
>>> >> bloggers and journalists who themselves are getting the best raw info
>>> >> to
>>> >> start with, and thus it's filtering through the better judgement of
>>> >> people
>>> >> with damned good judgement. In contrast, the cover of a newspaper is
>>> >> decided
>>> >> by one or two editors who may or may not be competent to make that
>>> >> decision
>>> >> and who at any rate are working under pressure from above to win
>>> >> readers by
>>> >> any means necessary; a similar dynamic takes place with all
>>> >> publications
>>> >> and outlets. Our system should produce superior end results - in fact,
>>> >> we
>>> >> think that this could potentially be the best means of obtaining
>>> >> important
>>> >> news and information ever devised, if only by default.
>>> >>
>>> >> Now, we do hope to see conventional outlets covering what we cover;
>>> >> this
>>> >> already goes on to some extent in the blogosphere, with editors and
>>> >> producers scanning the blogs for story ideas, and we want to increase
>>> >> the
>>> >> extent to which that occurs. To the extent that we can coordinate
>>> >> bloggers
>>> >> into a single network such as this, we can encourage this dynamic
>>> >> further
>>> >> while also helping to ensure that the best stories are being
>>> >> perpetuated
>>> >> around the blogosphere to begin with, on our network and elsewhere (as
>>> >> our
>>> >> bloggers will remain hooked in to whatever cross-linking they have
>>> >> going on
>>> >> already and will thus continue to have an influence on others, and so
>>> >> hopefully what rises to the top at our network will be more likely to
>>> >> flow
>>> >> through the existing structure as well). There is another, related
>>> >> dynamic
>>> >> we are pursuing - coordinating it in such a way that our bloggers
>>> >> consciously perpetuate a given story at a given time so that it becomes
>>> >> the
>>> >> de facto main topic of discussion on a given day and thus making it
>>> >> more
>>> >> likely that the traditional outlets will address such things. This is
>>> >> how we
>>> >> plan to force the mainstream media to examine its own faults (or, more
>>> >> likely, the faults of other outlets, which a given outlet is obviously
>>> >> more
>>> >> likely to discuss). For instance, everyone involved hates Thomas
>>> >> Friedman,
>>> >> knows that he's talked a great deal of nonsense throughout the years
>>> >> and
>>> >> otherwise led the public astray on all sorts of crucial topics;
>>> >> unfortunately, this is only expressed by a couple bloggers here and
>>> >> there at
>>> >> different times such that no critical mass arises. We will thus
>>> >> organize,
>>> >> from time to time, a particular window during which we'll ask our
>>> >> bloggers
>>> >> to all coordinate at once in exposing a given pundit's actual record in
>>> >> terms of predictions, consistency, etc. At that point, blog aggregators
>>> >> like
>>> >> Memeorandum become inundated with, say, articles about Friedman's
>>> >> suckiness,
>>> >> and then someone at a competing newspaper picks it up, etc. Even the
>>> >> New
>>> >> York Times itself might feel pressured to address such a thing if the
>>> >> meme
>>> >> reaches a certain level of activity. This critical mass will be even
>>> >> easier
>>> >> to reach by virtue of our participants being rather influential;
>>> >> collectively, even with just the bloggers we have now, we can achieve a
>>> >> couple hundred thousand unique visitors in a single day, and this will
>>> >> of
>>> >> course increase as we bring on new bloggers and journalists.
>>> >> Additionally,
>>> >> we have a number of other tricks up our sleeves in this regard - some
>>> >> of our
>>> >> participants are sort of akin to sleepers insomuch as that they still
>>> >> work
>>> >> as TV producers or assistant editors, hate the institutions for which
>>> >> they
>>> >> work and the structure as a whole, and are thus in a position to help
>>> >> ensure
>>> >> coverage at such time as we begin to go after the inexplicably
>>> >> respectable
>>> >> columnists like Friedman and Krauthammer.
>>> >> Then, we have the governing network, which is made up of various
>>> >> individuals of varying social station and skill sets. The overt intent
>>> >> of
>>> >> this network is to perpetuate media reform by thinking up new tactics
>>> >> and
>>> >> implementing them as well as overseeing any new programs that it
>>> >> chooses to
>>> >> implement. The actual intent is to build an entity that is designed,
>>> >> like
>>> >> the blogger network, to grow perpetually without losing its original
>>> >> high
>>> >> average quality. At some point, when this consists of hundreds of
>>> >> members of
>>> >> well above-average intelligence and ethical standards, and when these
>>> >> members are coordinating via this improved collaborative network, the
>>> >> result
>>> >> will be an entity that is far superior to any other decision-making
>>> >> body now
>>> >> in existence, that operates in conjunction with what amounts to a
>>> >> distributed media empire, and which can draw upon every imaginable
>>> >> branch of
>>> >> expertise by way of our members' respective skill sets and colleagues.
>>> >> Such
>>> >> an entity would be capable of achieving all sorts of things,
>>> >> particularly
>>> >> since, unlike Congress, the members will have a lot of fundamental
>>> >> values in
>>> >> common and thus plenty of potential goals to pursue, and with an
>>> >> unusual
>>> >> degree of success, I would expect. So, in short, I am building a sort
>>> >> of
>>> >> technocratic, distributed shadow republic made up entirely of
>>> >> intelligent,
>>> >> capable individuals - one that is, again, designed to grow over time
>>> >> and
>>> >> thus gain more and more soft power, which may in turn be used to
>>> >> further our
>>> >> general goals to greater and greater degrees.
>>> >> The Africa Development Program, aside from being an example of one such
>>> >> goal, is sort of an experiment to see how well this would work and what
>>> >> dynamics might arise in the process. A week into its inception, it
>>> >> seems to
>>> >> be going very well indeed, as you'll see from the link.
>>> >> Anyway, let me know if you have any other questions at this point.
>>> >> Basically, you're welcome to become involved in whatever capacity you
>>> >> like;
>>> >> if you have a good idea regarding what we ought to do with this little
>>> >> cyber
>>> >> army, for instance, I'm all ears, as we're about to start setting up
>>> >> new
>>> >> sub-programs anyway. At some point, the governing network will be ready
>>> >> to
>>> >> operate on its own, but until then I remain benevolent dictator, and my
>>> >> cyber army is your cyber army. Someone who puts together the sort of
>>> >> output
>>> >> as you do clearly has the ability to make good use of such resources.
>>> >> Now, I
>>> >> understand that I am making you a bizarre offer, but give it some
>>> >> thought.
>>> >> Even if you're busy, you'd be in a position to delegate any ideas you'd
>>> >> like
>>> >> to see implemented, which is to say that you'd be able to get things
>>> >> done
>>> >> without actually taking the time to do them yourself.
>>> >> In conclusion, I promise that I'm not crazy.
>>> >> I'll get the interview questions to you soon; thanks for agreeing to
>>> >> that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > Let me know if you'd like to see a sort of experimental example of
>>> >>> > one of our sub-projects, the Africa Development Program, which is
>>> >>> > being
>>> >>> > ru
>>> >>> > largely by our legal and financial folks and which may be viewed
>>> >>> > viao a
>>> >>> > shared Google Doc.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Yeah, it would be interesting to take a look. Like you said, I'm
>>> >>> busy, especially now, and I'm not sure of what use I can be, but it
>>> >>> would be good to look. I read the Project PM page, and from what I
>>> >>> could tell it is a specialized social networking site where you'd
>>> >>> "friend" people that are worth listening to, and you can send out
>>> >>> information pulses some distance down the friend network. I gather
>>> >>> the intent is to move the best information around more quickly in a
>>> >>> more chaffless environment -- I don't know if it is intended to be a
>>> >>> new place where the larger media outlets actually look for stories, or
>>> >>> if it is a way to influence what appears on the existing news
>>> >>> aggregators that the media already dips into, or both. The
>>> >>> influence-the-media part was what I was most fuzzy on after reading
>>> >>> the description, but I either missed something or just don't
>>> >>> understand how the overall system works.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> > Slightly related - would you be interested in doing a short e-mail
>>> >>> > interview? I've been meaning to do at least one piece on DF and its
>>> >>> > various
>>> >>> > implications, probably for one of the bigger U.S. mags (non-gaming
>>> >>> > or
>>> >>> > tech,
>>> >>> > I'm thinking The Atlantic or at least its website), otherwise just a
>>> >>> > single
>>> >>> > piece to be run on both True/Slant and Huffington Post (the latter
>>> >>> > has
>>> >>> > appropriate sub-sections). I would only need a couple short quotes
>>> >>> > from
>>> >>> > you,
>>> >>> > and promise that these would not be the sort of questions you
>>> >>> > usually
>>> >>> > receive.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sure, interviews are always fun, especially when they are refreshing.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Tarn
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Barrett Brown
>>> >> Brooklyn, NY
>>> >> 512-560-2302.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Barrett Brown
>>> > Brooklyn, NY
>>> > 512-560-2302
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Barrett Brown
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 512-560-2302
>>
>

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302