Thursday 1900 EST

From CyberOne Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Group Overview

Places & Times


  • Bridget Smith (Frappe Lapointe) []
  • Brien Walton (Blaise Syaka)
  • Esmond Kane (Pere Utu)
  • William James (USA Brody)
  • Yvette Wohn (Yvette Kumsung)

Assignment: Interview a SL personality

Due Monday (Oct 9) at 10:55 EST (Assignment in Moodle)

Anyone know if this is a group Assignment?

Yes. Sign up for an Interviewee here

Project Discussion

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061019

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061026

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061102

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061109

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061116

Thursday 7pm Chatlog 20061130

Friday 7pm Chatlog 20061201

Also see Topics and Thesis discussion here

Project Thesis

Thesis candidates

  • The integration of Voice in SL can result in varying degrees of discrimination against the residents, and this project will address issues regarding the impact of Voice on the social network.
  • Ceding development to 3rd party voice tools and developers, cedes control over the content and introduces the risk of censorship and limits on expression. Linden must develop voice in-house with the same participatory, optional limitations used in the existing modes of expression.
  • Linden must NOT impose their Western morality on the implementation of Voice in SL. Voice is a multi-cultural, international and liberating technology which must be implemented within the cultural and moral confines of the home country. This development is best left to 3rd parties in a similar manner to the existing cultural grids.
  • Voice is a boundary shattering introduction to Second Life. Anyone who can speak and use a joystick has as much a right to participate in SL as the texting, literate, educated minority. Linden must not only encourage the rapid, accelerated development of Voice but also the development of translation engines in SL to embrace the developing world and encourage communication across borders and cultures.

Project Podcasts

Our podcasts are up here

Project Topics

Topics candidates

Heed Typers When Voice Comes

Hypothesis: Voice is coming to SL and will bring new capabilities

Problem: Discrimination of typers in type-voice coexsiting environment

1.Typers are slower, making it more difficult to fit into conversations
2.Voice users may feel annoyed by chat windows, or get used to minimizing the window
3.Clash of typing sounds with voice

Why should we think of protecting the rights of typers?

1. May not be able to speak (mute, soar throat)
2. Situation where you cannot use voice (office)
3. Personal reasons (Don't like sound of voice/doesn't suit identity of avatar/want to keep level of privacy/stutter,lisp, accent)
4. Multitasking (chat while listening to music, etc.)
5. Efficiency in certain situations(Group chats, lectures)

Questions to Ask Ourselves

1. Who should be given the right to decide whether the zone is voice, text, or voice-text?
2. How can we create awareness?
3. Are we calling for technical attention from Linden or social attention from residents?

Solution/Action: "Heed Typers" Campaign?

Presentation Method Ideas:

1. Create rooms with streaming audio boxes.
2. Create machinima

Project Responsibilities

Real Name SL Name Introduction For Against Conclusion Machinima
Esmond Kane Pere Utu Yes
Bridget Smith Frappe Lapointe Yes
William James USA Brody Yes
Brian Blaise Sydake Yes
Yvette Wohn Yvette Kumsung Yes

Project Deliverables (Tentative)

  • Saturday Dec 2 7pm: Text
  • Sunday Dec 3 7pm: Audio
  • Thursday Dec 8 7pm: Project Draft
  • Tuesday Dec 12 7pm: Project Presentation

Project Script/Detail

Please edit your own section only. It'll get reaaal messy if we all edit the main page. Remember, this is about Voice discrimination and SL!



Freedom of Speech, Swearing, Accents, Pitch, Cultural (Ebonics etc), Disabilities (Stutter, Lisp), SL vs RL (Gender, Voice Fonts), Foreign Languages, Crosstalk ,Latency, Text = Oration style

we are arguing for the choice of the avatar to be able to toggle voice integration

  • Scence setting
  • Mention of broad possibilities for discussion
  • narrow focus
  • thesis
Intro: Draft

New technology and the new media marketplace of the 21st century, have greatly changed the nature of information exchange and the very framework for Human communication. Cave paintings, stone and paper etchings, wax and clay records are now mere nano-scale metal etchings, polarised atoms, insubstantial radio waves, beams of light, electrons and Quantum signatures. We stand on the precipice of a convergence of all Human communication into a single datastream, the development of an Electronic Human network. (Singularity?) (Audio: 0:35 minutes)

The Older communication frameworks, favoured systems of proxies, designated champions and sporadic polls. The greater populace was excluded from meaningful participation in issues of commonality, the grand Economic, Political, Scientific, Religious debates, the Historical and Educational scholarly imperatives. It simply was not technically or administratively possible to include a large population in expansive dialogue when using the older frameworks. Technology has lowered the barrier to communicate and participate, now the greater populace, the everyday actors, participate in the recording of thought, the dialogue, discussion, the narration, negotiation, the persuasion, compromise and consensus, Human communication in all its facets is no longer the preserve or the arena of an elite minority. (Audio: 1:20 minutes)

Massively Multiplayer Online Realities are one tool in the new communication frameworks. MMO's are technology showcases which emulate the physical presence and proximity of the participants by simulating each individual and a shared reality. These communities are vast forums for social networking and experimentation in culture and perception. Politics, Religion, Culture, Society, all the greater issues are emulated and the core principals modified, new concepts tested as the participants "play" with reality. (Audio: 2 Minutes)

In one such MMO, Second Life, despite the effort spent on implementing the “virtual reality”, communication is still based on the older communication frameworks. The visual aspects of the simulation have been prioritized in the development and dialogue relegated to a linear textual chat system. SL avatars are still etching thought onto a virtual clay or wax tablet. (Audio: 2:20 minutes)

For: why voice is not discriminatory or it doesnt matter
  • -
  • -
  • -
  • -

Against: why text is less discriminatory
  • -
  • -
  • -
Summary and Conclusion
  • 'give us the choice'
  • "it is open for all to decide what they want ot choose"
  • -
  • -