ITT: I take credit for your work and declare a New Project.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I thought it was fascinating, and a good idea for *something*.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

TZ: your post was excellent. I just haven't processed it to the point of making further suggestions yet. Social networking is sort of what we're after, and the fact that the Internet has grown an entire industry devoted to making that easier should help tremendously. The challenge is in using Web 2.0 stuff to overcome Web 2.0's built-in entertainment/bullshit-centric character.

[Triple Zero]

about the bullshit part of "web2.0": this is mostly because the term "web2.0" can refer to a very wide variety of different notions. shiny icons and gradients are also part of "web2.0", for instance. a large part of these notions are marketing bullshit.

the bits that i think are relevant to our projects* are: social networking, tagging, social bookmarking, social <anything>, feeds/syndication and mashups/webglueing.

the last one may be a bit technical for some, but there are some great free tools out there that allow you to link various (social) services (as i said, just like lego), allowing you to set up a sort of automated network structure that doesn't really need to be run by any kind of central command or administrator.

* and also happen to be the bits that i do not consider bullshit, and happen to be the bits i'm particularly interested in

[Cain]

Okay.

This is called "The Game," but don't let it fool you. It isn't just a "game" in a traditional sense. By "Game," I meant to stress the idea that an organization might be spawned and motivated by a deliberately designed set of simple instructions, to achieve deliberately designed results.

The set of simple rules is, in practice, the limit of this project's similarities to a mere "game." Cain is absolutely correct -- for anything to come of it, it must not appear like it's just a game. The trick is getting people going through the motions of activity the way people go through the motions of playing a game, especially if you can get them to do it without it ever crossing their minds that they are "playing a game."

In fact, this sort of thing is the building block of the Machine to begin with -- people autonomously going about their 'business' according to the set of rules with which they are presented, absolutely oblivious to the fact that there's no natural law that says those rules have any authority.

Just wanted to try and clear up any confusion early on about what my position is. It is not just that we set out to achieve some result by engineering an organization to achieve it; it is not that we simply rephrase OM to make it more user-friendly; it is that we design an organization with no hierarchy other than a set of rules, that is self-replicating, and that produces results based on the rules we set. We then would launch that 'game' into the wild and see what people do with it, without us holding their hands the whole way.

I'm down with that.

[Cain]

I thought Web2.0 was using online programs in place of offline ones and that social networking was only a tangenitally related phenomenon?

Besides, the buzz is all about Web 3.0 now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3

[LMNO]

Vex, the first 2/3 of the OP was a really wonderful summation.  And I dig the idea of "The Game".

I don't know enought about social engineering to gestate ideas, but I can do my best about spreading the "rules".

[Cain]

Lysergic and 000 know the most about social engineering out of everyone here.  I keep meaning to read more on marketing, but get caught up in other things.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Lysergic and 000 know the most about social engineering out of everyone here.  I keep meaning to read more on marketing, but get caught up in other things.

Don't forget me... I do that shit for a living sometime

"Yes, I'm with the helpdesk... No we really need your password now."
"Could you hold that door for me, my badge is in my coat pocket and these computers are heavy"

Also, maybe scorekeeping would be better replaced by Counting Chao, which is like Counting Koo (Coo/Kou however its spelled). Among hackers, this is usually a predominant way of keeping score, not an official counting system, but some personal token/mark etc that says "I've pulled off three orbital bombardments and and trolled Ron Paul IRL, bitches!"

[Cain]

Oh yes, your computer security background.  Lys and 000 are pretty clued up on NLP and body language, social dynamics etc too.  I've read around the topic, but havent had much scope for practice since I worked unsociable hours all last summer, then went straight into a dissertation.  Apart from a few well practised tricks, I'm rusty.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Oh yes, your computer security background.  Lys and 000 are pretty clued up on NLP and body language, social dynamics etc too.  I've read around the topic, but havent had much scope for practice since I worked unsociable hours all last summer, then went straight into a dissertation.  Apart from a few well practised tricks, I'm rusty.

I've got some experience with NLP etc too, taking classes at MLA is definately worth something LOL.

[Triple Zero]

Oh yes, your computer security background.  Lys and 000 are pretty clued up on NLP and body language, social dynamics etc too.  I've read around the topic, but havent had much scope for practice since I worked unsociable hours all last summer, then went straight into a dissertation.  Apart from a few well practised tricks, I'm rusty.

cain please don't give me too much credit on the social engineering part

maybe i do know more about it than the average person, maybe i don't. i read about it, i played with it a littlebit. nothing about NLP, though. i came across the term very often but every time i looked it up all i found was major boring shit and snake oil.

but, i've been meaning to get out and practice more in the social game. i've been spending way too much time behind the computer anyway, lately. i really need some more impulsive action.

but, i dunno what you can really expect from this angle anyway. it's really one of those "think for yourself" things. example, Lys got totally hosed as a poser when he even simply approached the subject.

I thought Web2.0 was using online programs in place of offline ones and that social networking was only a tangenitally related phenomenon?

no, the problem is that the term "web2.0" is being used to describe a lot of different things.

that is why people are so allergic to it and consider it a bad buzzword. because saying "we gotta have more web2.0 in our application" is pretty much meaningless, because it could mean anything.

the thing is, that a lot of things web2.0 describes kind of hang together. for example, you have online apps, like googledocs. because they're online, they allow for social networking, people can cooperate, write on the same document, from different places, because it all happens online.
when an application appears online, it's real easy to hang a "social" interface to it, which nearly always adds value compared to a regular desktop app.
and apart from that, you have "pure" social applications like del.icio.us, facebook or twitter.

maybe it's smart to start another thread about web2.0 [which forum? TfYS or O:M?] cause i don't wanna jack this "Game" idea too much.

Besides, the buzz is all about Web 3.0 now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3

well, we'll see what that's all about when we get there.

(btw according to one of those descriptions, Yahoo!Pipes is already web3 ? pff it's just semantics, i dont care, i'll just help you guys use the tools, okay?)

[Cain]

Knowing more than me on a subject makes someone an expert, unless I know nothing at all.

And if you wanted to talk about Web 2.0 more generally, I would suggest this forum, unless you have a clear O:MF orientated slant on it.  If you do, I'd be interested, but if not, here would be better.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The most useful way that I've found to discuss Web2.0 is in terms of information.

Internet Before Web = Information Available. Information flow is one way and offline (download for offline reading).

Web 1.0 - Information Available Online, Links to more Information Online, Links to more... Web Content Provider creates Information and provides it for viewing. Information flow is One Way

Web 2.0 - Information Available Online, Links to more Information Online, Links to more... Content Providers and Content Users create content, Information Flow now goes from Provider to User, User to Provider, User to User... Linking by Provider and User. Etc

[Cain]

I read something like that on the Wikipedia entry for it.  So what would that make Web 3.0?  Networked (peer to peer) information flow?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

As to an O:MF slant... I think thats simple.

Web 1.0 had a single channel for Information. Webmaster/dev writes HTML files with information. This file is placed on a secure server and *BAM* that's it. To compromise the information flow, you must compromise the server, compromise the author or compromise the client so that it doesn't get to the real data (DNS spoofing etc). In 2.0 the tight control over information sources has dropped... information comes from all over the place, often in an automated fashion. In Web 1.0, a Reuters feed would be taken, written into a web page and posted... now an RSS feed automatically accepts and posts anything from what it thinks is 'Reuters' or whoever the RSS feed belongs to. Sites feed off of sites which feed off of sites and users. Compromising a single point in this information flow, can allow tainted information to flow much further than previously.