Cantr II Discussion Forum

I guess something like this one won't do...: http://www.bbsgames.net/Cantr.php

So we're stuck >.>

I had a look at putting up a Cantr wiki page the other day (I spend quite a bit of time on Wikipedia, looking after and developing the geography articles mostly).

But the lack of sources means it was a no-go.

If people want Cantr on the wiki:

1) Forward the game to 'reliable' sources for review (easy hint for reliable: does it have a wiki page itself?...)

2) If the Esperanto / multi-lingual thing is truly a lead, get Cantr reviewed / noted on websites about language.

Wikki is facing the same problem that cantr faces.

A brilliant start, slowly declining contributor base, and stagnation based on the fact that the established culture is mildly hostile to new people.

Wikipedia is big enough to have conventions that work on these issues, and to make international news (even if it is the academic media)

It's only right that Wikipedia go into decline. It is only a sense of 'solidarity' in people using it that ever gave it credibility in the first place, and by that, I mean it is written by 'us' for 'us', and thus... regulated by 'us' (and by that last 'us' what I really mean is 'them')

It is an offshoot from a previous 'pedia' and basically dumped the work ethic as it moved away. It is no worse for errors than your average encyclopaedia, but this is compounded by the fact that it publishes erroneous facts, rather than (more safely) omitting them.
It rose quickly because people made a leap of faith, and more basically, are 'cognitively lazy', choosing to accept everything it says as 'true'.

No matter... why am I so opposed to Wikipedia, when it is a very useful first point of call..? Because, in my time as an academic, i have seen some majestic misuses of it, and to the detriment of even 'higher' educational levels.

It's unfortunate that Cantr can grab a player base from Wikipedia, because it's a pretty dismal site, and if anyone wants to fight them to make it more meaningful, they should do it on the basis of regulation... as long as it is 'staffed' and resourced by a volunteer 'police' force (albeit experienced) They will never make significantly consistent and/or accurate calls in terms of what is a significant addition to their pages.

One thing I like about Wikipedia is the fact that the information on it generally has to be agreed upon by the masses, or the mass of Wikipedia editors, and the more trusted ones can make the decision in the end. Wikipedia's pages are watched closely, from what I can tell.

Another thing I like is that I can edit the typos.

While I am shuddering at the thought of someone referencing a wiki page in anything vaguely academic, I do admire how it exists built from almost nothing.

The report I heard indicated that it's largest cultural problem was in recruiting new people into the culture. Old hands understood the wiring under the board so well that they tended to forget that it took them a long time to get to that point, and treat the simplicity that they can deal with the system and the society as if it was accessible to everyone.

Sort of natural, but a bit embarrassing for an organization that large.

Joshuamonkey wrote:We need to convince Wikipedia that Cantr II is notable and has information about it from reliable sources.

I knew that I've seen a link to Cantr II on any reliable page about Esperanto and now I've found it: http://www.esperanto.de/dej/ligoj_eo.php
That's the page of the German Esperanto Youth (Esperanto or German)

Cantr II
estas multlingva enreta rolludo, en kiu granda nombro da ludantoj ludas eĉ pli grandan nombron da rolantoj, kiuj kune formas malsamajn sociojn ĉie en nia virtuala mondo. Esperanto estas inter la lingvoj uzataj. La ludo tre bone uzeblas por praktiki viajn lingvajn kapablojn en dua lingvo.

Did nobody check the google scholar result someone posted earlier (maybe in another thread)? This article mentions Cantr. Although you have to pay for it there it can also be found here. Cantr is only mentioned in one paragraph though.

Roles are also definitive elements of civic games. A role is a place in the social network
of the game, which often confers a motive for play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) and may include
an avatar (or onscreen representation of one’s role or character in the game). For example,
turnbased strategy games such as Civilization III or Black & White 2 (Lionhead Studios, 2005) cast
the player as a leader of a civilization and confer a motive to expand its influence over other
lands and peoples. Political simulations such as Democracy (Positech Games, 2005) place the
player as the leader of a contemporary country endowed with an incentive to win re-election.
Roles may be more significant in a game where they are fluid and players may switch easily
between identities. In the online game Cantr II (Elkind, 2003), one may create multiple
characters whose only motives are survival and the development of an open-ended form of
society through interaction with other characters. Role development and social interaction
constitute much of the game play.

Thanks! I can add those to the references.