Converted to HTML by Jolo using rtftohtml, Jan 30, 1997
Since its inception, Bolo has grown to encompass what has become known as "the Bolo community," a loose-knit association of regular Bolo players. The Bolo community primarily takes its shape within the game itself, as well as two other Internet domains, the Usenet newsgroup rec.games.bolo and the IRC channel #bolo. Each medium (the newsgroup, the IRC channel, and Bolo itself), combined with the numerous web pages devoted to Bolo, serves to cohesively unify and amalgamate the Bolo community.
Because Internet Bolo is a relatively young phenomenon and I can recount its development since its nascent stages, it provides a dramatic forum for which to study the development of the self under the conditions of an interactive electronic medium. Bolo itself presents a variety of options for constructing an identity as the player chooses; before even entering the game the player is faced with the selection of a handle (a name for his Bolo identity), so the opportunity for spontaneous expression of the self is immediately constrained. The emergence of the Bolo community brought with it a set of rules and regulations for Internet Bolo behavior which, ambiguous and inconclusive as they are, have played an important role in its maturation. These rules constitute a set of "virtual ethics," standards by which any civil Bolo player will compete in the game. As such they place a boundary on any Bolo identity, further constraining the vision of the self that can appear in a Bolo game.
I've met (in real life[1], that is) a number of Bolo players and have thus had the opportunity to directly compare their on-line selves with their "real" selves. I place "real" in quotations because the notion of a constituent inextricable autonomous self is itself open to question; the degree of conscious construction of personality in everyday life remains unexamined in our readings. Comparing on-line Bolo selves to a traditional conception of the self is a task without great inherent difficulty, but verifying the veracity of that conception presents a more difficult endeavor. I will myself try to establish some theoretical basis for critiquing the traditional conception of the self.
I have submitted a brief questionnaire for the perusal of all Bolo players who read rec.games.bolo, which comprises the vast majority of on-line Internet Bolo players. While those that responded are not necessarily a random cross-sampling, they do represent a wide range of the Bolo community, covering a breadth of the game-playing ability that constitutes the prime determinate of Bolo "social status." The responses to the questionnaire are generally quite interesting and will form the basis for some of the observations to follow.
This paper will be divided into several sections. I will not attempt to structure it as if it were a comprehensive analysis of the psychological phenomenon underlying Bolo; rather, it will be an overview of the game and how it relates to the fragmentation of the self. I will first describe to the constructions that constitute the self on the Bolo playing field. I will delineate the process of creating an identity in Bolo, a process proscribed by the player's wishes but generally constrained to some degree by the Bolo community. The next section of the paper will describe Bolo's role as a safe space and the opportunities for distancing oneself from real life that are present in Bolo. Throughout the paper I will make reference to selections from the more interesting questionnaires. I will examine the effect that Bolo play has on the traditional idea of an integral, embodied and autonomous self, and finally note the ways in which Bolo identities can intersect with their corresponding real life identities.
Bolo Identity.
As outlined in the prolegomena, Bolo identity is displayed within the game in three ways: the way a player maneuvers his tank, the messages a player sends in a Bolo game, and the handle a player takes on while playing. The handle that a player chooses is the primary way in which he is identified by others. A player who alters his Bolo handle immediately disassociates himself from his previous identity. Bolo players who play a long time under one handle become known as that handle, even if they later use another. The player Santa (real name: Tim Brandt), for instance, became the world's best player while playing under that name. Later, after "retiring" from the game for a while and depreciating in skill, he returned under another handle but was still referred to as Santa by other players. Interestingly, despite that the given ("real") names of most players are known, only those who have met each other will refer to each other by their given names. Achieving a "first-name basis" with another Bolo player is a sign of closeness, an indicator of friendship and intimacy that crosses from the Internet environment into the physical universe, and is rarely witnessed except among those players who have actually met each other.
There are two other character determinants for a Bolo player: his skill and the messages he sends. Bolo is a competitive arena, and as such the skill with which a player maneuvers his tank generally overrides message content when characterizing a player's identity; a player is first known as "good" or "bad" before anything else. Recognizing your own and other players' skills is a first-order concern in any Bolo game as such knowledge is a prerequisite for actually starting the game, usually for the purposes of determining fair alliances. Like all competitors, Bolo players have a tendency to inflate their self-image and construe their level of ability to be higher than it is.
While messaging style is usually identified with a player after skill and handle, this is an ambiguous area. Players with particularly flamboyant message content, or with no real skill by which to be characterized, tend to become more associated with their messaging. Message content gives a personality to handle and skill: two players of very similar skill and equally innocuous handles will be labeled as "nice" or "obnoxious" based on the messages they send. Perhaps the best demarcation is to relegate handle and skill to "identity in terms of Bolo," and message content (because it is not restricted to the confines of Bolo) to "personality," a greater sense of identity.
Constructing an Identity In Bolo.
The act of engaging in a Bolo game presents a conscious and premeditated opportunity for social activity. When all interaction is predicated on depressing the enter key, there is much more time for carefully constructed dialogue. Other interlocutors are distant and far removed, mediated by a one-way process whereby they cannot witness your reactions until you have chosen what they will witness. The notion of a spontaneous and unintended faux pas disappears; any and all mistakes can be directly attributed to intentional action. Or the opposite may be the case: A player could conceivably not take advantage of Bolo's social filters and simply react in the same way he would in real life. Overtly offensive messages could elicit spontaneous emotional responses. The same degrees of social awareness that pervade real life interactions could be present within Bolo as differing tendencies to take advantage of the intermediary electronic filters.
Abstractly, my greatest interest in the subject is the degree to which socially constructed identities in real life are also present in Bolo; that is, whether the same people who consciously arrange their social presence in real life (as measured by clothing, facial expression, hair style, speech style, and general behavior) do so within the confines of the Bolo world, too. However, discerning such behavior is far beyond the realm of my capabilities, for it would involve meeting and examining each and every subject in person. Therefore, I've restricted my interests to a more relevant subject: the overlap and/or dissimilarity between a person's real life self and that person's Bolo self. I have inquired into Bolo players' tendencies to distinguish between their real life and net selves, and whether this disparity (if any) affects how they have viewed themselves in real life. While most players see no distinction between their real selves and their Bolo selves, several have concluded in vast disparities and genuine differences between socializing in the real world and in the Bolo world.
The survey I conducted consisted of a set of questions relating to the distinction between a "real self" and a "Bolo self." The questions were slanted in the direction of a distinction, but the questionnaire was informal and imprecise; it was not designed to be entirely neutral and is not rigidly methodologically accurate. These were the exact questions:
* Does your "net personality," the identity you express in Bolo games,
reflect your "real" self and state of mind, or is it an assumed identity
distinct from your real-world identity?
* Does your Bolo identity cross over into your non-net life?
* Do you feel your Bolo identity is an expression of your "real" self,
or an actual separate identity? Or is it something else?
* Are there other areas of life (other than Bolo) where you have
separate identities?
* Do you feel your conception of the self has changed since you began
using a separate identity in Bolo?
* Must you make an active effort to remain "in character" on the net, or
is it easy to slip into a personality?
This set of questions yielded a broad range of responses, though I will generally be excerpting from them rather than simply cataloguing answers.
Bolo's Social Scene.
A virtual social scene like Bolo's is akin to a party distilled into its most basic elements. Bolo takes place not only within the game itself, but on a Usenet newsgroup and an IRC chat channel, each of which is a public forum. The vestiges of prestige -- friends and influence -- can be just as evident in these places as in any real life setting. Players are actively concerned about their "reputation," and an important milestone for any player is to achieve name player status, to have his handle and identity be known even to those he has never encountered. A popular Bolo player receives greetings when he joins a forum (be it a game, the newsgroup, or the IRC channel); lesser known or disliked players are more often ignored when they make their entrance. The Bolo newsgroup has harbored numerous flame wars; the entrance of popular players into the fray usually sets the standard for the remainder of the disagreement and often determines whether it continues or dies out. Popular players can affect the choice of map or teams for a game; they are also the leaders in efforts to chastise or even banish those who violate the etiquette rules of the Bolo community. The extent of the influence of a popular player on a situation is easy to exaggerate and I admit that it is not always so clear as I've described above, but the indicators of a good social situation are apparent to anyone who has seriously engaged in the Bolo community.
Bolo is a competitive game. At the conclusion of every game there is a winner or winning team, and a loser or losing team. Serious Bolo players are aware of their own skill level (subject to the vagaries of ego) and are knowledgeable of their opponents. When I was at the peak of my playing ability, I was conscious of the general playing style and weaknesses of every name player. I mentally characterized how each played and how I should respond in a game, and I always knew who was better than me and who I could beat. Because of this competitive focus, at the center of all Bolo interaction is, unsurprisingly, Bolo itself. While net socializing constitutes part of the community, Bolo lies is the crux.
With a social scene situated at the fringe of a competitive sport, there arises a correlation of social status with non-social skills. An adroit Bolo player can gain social prestige even if his social skills are not up to par. Within a MUD that revolves around purely social activity it will be the players' abilities to socialize that places them within the social scene. Within Bolo, however, social skill[2] plays as much a part in the social process as Bolo skill. Name player status is accorded thanks to playing ability and not personality; reputation is almost always predicated on Bolo skill and nothing else. Tangential elements of reputation may concern the player's tendency to be a "jerk" or a "nice guy," but they are not the primary concern.
Several empirical examples immediately come to mind.
* The most renowned name players are always those with the most Bolo
skill. The three players to have occupied the #1 spot in the Bolo world thus
far (Black Lightning (real name: Matt Slot), Santa, and myself as Hillbilly
Bob&tm;) have done so through Bolo skill alone.
* There have, however, been Bolo players who have built reputations
outside Bolo skill itself. Two that come to mind immediately are SBCM (an
acronym for SteamBoatCaptainMan; real name: Russell Mast) and Jolo (real name:
Joseph Lo). SBCM is an outspoken and ornery fellow with a mocking sense of
humor who is not afraid to make his opinions (personal or otherwise) known in a
public forum. Jolo, on the other hand, is the quintessential "nice guy" and it
is on that that his reputation is based. Neither has ever been one of the best
Bolo players, but both have been well known for a long time. However, they are
exceptions to the rule: they are some of the few Bolo players known but not for
their skill.
* There is one example of a Bolo player who achieved name status through
Bolo skill despite his on-line personality. Diamond (real name: David
Peevers) is the archetypal jerk. He berates and mocks his fellow players, be
they ally or enemy, and is known to have a short fuse. He occasionally slips
into angry fits where he curses at particular players in the game, and he
intentionally antagonizes opposing players in ways unrelated to both Bolo and
polite behavior. Yet he eventually became good enough at Bolo to achieve name
player status.
I conjecture that the potential for social status independent of social skill may be part of the draw to Bolo. In what follows I will elaborate as to the similarities between MUDs and Bolo, in terms of Turkle's writings, that constitute a large part of players' desire to engage Bolo as an activity. One aspect that may be completely unique to Bolo, however, is the lack of necessary correspondence between social skill and social status.
Social Constraints.
The Bolo community looks disapprovingly upon a wide range of behavior. There is hardly a consensus in most cases, but usually enough players are of a particular persuasion that others are swayed to obey.
In general, Bolo taboos involve considerations of game play. Actions that make the game "less fun" in the eyes of most players are seen with disapprobation. Players' enjoyment of the game can be demeaned either by actions unrelated to skill (for instance, the act of "carpet mining," which reduces a large swath of the playing field to rubble, slowing the advance the game inordinately), or actions that are of such efficacious result that they make the game boring for the less skilled players (for instance, the style of play known as "base raping" can be incredibly effective when done well but radically changes the theme of the game to one which more traditional players dislike). There is a consensus that the former style of play should be avoided, but opinions on the latter vary. Predictably, the split is along skill lines. The community maintains rules for other areas of the game, too; one other set of rules covers messaging content: obscene and vulgar messages are usually frowned upon, and it is considered polite to announce to other players at the end of a game that it was a "good game."
This array of guidelines restricts behavior within Bolo games both as it relates to Bolo specifically and as it relates to other players in a social manner. The identity of a Bolo player is thus constrained. Rules within the Bolo community that aren't so stringently followed in a player's real life can be in force within Bolo; in particular, the prohibition of profane messages, although not the most egregious of offenses, can be unexpected to a new player joining a Bolo game.
Bolo as a Safe Space.
Unlike many areas of cyberspace, violations of Bolo community etiquette do have consequences. Bolo is a voluntary activity, and in order to engage in a game all players must consent. It is possible to implement a "lock-out" on a game so that no additional players may join, and it is also possible to require a password to enter a game such that only selected players who have been informed of the password can do so. A player who continually violates Bolo etiquette will eventually irritate enough other players that he will have difficulty finding people to play with: players will simply not agree to play games with him. This has happened on numerous occasions during my time playing Bolo, and at various times some players have maintained communal black-lists.
The consequences of offending the Bolo community are primarily confined solely to the community itself, but as the potential for offensive actions in a Bolo game is primarily limited to Bolo-related activities, the punishment is ordinarily appropriate. Offensive or vulgar messages can directly attack someone on a personal level and constitute the only offense that cannot be adjudicated in Bolo terms alone, but because the Bolo community decries such behavior it is not common in Bolo games. Escape from vituperative socializing is one of the reasons people seek cyberspace interaction in the first place, as Turkle notes:
In my interviews with people about the possibility of computer psychotherapy, a ventilation model of psychotherapy came up often as a reason why computers could be therapists. In the ventilation model, psychotherapy makes people better by being a safe place for airing problems, expressing anger, and admitting to fears. MUDs may provide a place for people to talk freely -- and with other people rather than with a machine -- but they also illustrate that therapy has to be more than a safe place to "ventilate."[3]
While Turkle makes reference specifically to MUDs, the role of Bolo is similar. Bolo can provide a safe haven for those who have difficulty with real life socialization. The (admittedly limited) latitude for punishing those who violate the rules of the Bolo community provides an additional incentive to escape to the game.
A few Bolo players come to the precisely for its value as an "outlet" or safe space. One player, Grinch (real name: Kipton Barros) describes the difference between his Bolo self and his real life self as due to the "special circumstances" surrounding Bolo interaction.
I believe [my Bolo self] is an extension of my real self in many ways. It is easier to speak of behavior, because that is more easily monitored than identity. In my bolo identity, I behave more truly and uninhibited. I have more self confidence. I'm more open. However, all these feelings are due to the special circumstances (I'm around people that I trust, people can't hurt me, at one point I was a Bolo "god"[4], etc.). Besides these special circumstances, the social aspect for Bolo is the same as real life.
The "special circumstances" he speaks of ("I'm around people that I trust, people can't hurt me, at one point I was a Bolo `god,' etc.") are the prime distinguishing factors between real life social interaction and cyberspace interaction. The distance between an individual and potential negative social interactions is vastly increased when the individual has the power to terminate the interaction at the touch of a key, and this is one of the powers afforded by Bolo (and perhaps any net-based) socializing. Grinch goes on to note that
Generally my net identity feels very comfortable to me, almost more comfortable than my real life identity. It's no more difficult to stay in my net identity than it is to stay in my real life identity. My net identity may just be my true self uninhibited.
The protective aspect of Bolo socializing may not be the only reason people indulge in it, however. As I mentioned previously, one can climb to the heights of the Bolo social ladder without social ability; Bolo as a competitive activity means that those who compete best hold the most privileged place in the community. All of these combine to open new doors for those unable to fit conventional societal molds.
Grinch's reference to "people that I trust" opens up another avenue of interest: What is the basis of trust in a Bolo community? Is the self so constrained within the confines of Bolo that it flattens and loses depth, thus becoming easier to trust? Or is the room for deception and distrust reduced within the Bolo world simply because of the limited bounds of the game? Trust is in part immunity from maltreatment, so perhaps the ability to "turn off" any Bolo interaction, whether good or bad, makes it easier to trust within that environment. Again, Bolo behavior has repercussions only within the Bolo community, making it easier to confide in fellow players: one knows the definite limits to any disaster, and the whole of any mess may be avoided by not playing Bolo.
There can be negative results of Bolo's emphasis on the competitive arena, however. It is possible for the competition to infringe on the game's status as a safe space. AceQ (real name: Jason Herrington) notes that
My net personality is much more aggressive than the "real world" personality. The cross over is common when among other net players, mostly because the situations brought on us by the net game in question are reviewed: favorite situations and game play, etc.
In this case what social pressure exists in the real world is replaced by the competitive pressures of Bolo. Bolo still allows the player to remove himself from reality, but places him in another reality that can in some ways be equally intimidating.
Nevertheless, the use of Bolo as an escape valve by some players remains unimpugned. Playing Bolo allows an individual to enter a world completely free of all entrenched conceptions. Whatever obstacles face an individual in day to day life are not present in Bolo; all that need be dealt with is what directly involves the game. The constraints and preconceptions of genuine physical interaction are overcome and subordinated and the player is freed of them.
A Schism of the Self.
Several of those surveyed expressed a sense of separation between their Bolo selves and real life selves. A few others seemed to consciously assimilate the two into their genuine, whole self, yet inadvertently allowed that there was some distinction in the way that they answered the questionnaire. Those who did see their Bolo self as distinct usually saw it as such in a constructed way; their real life self controlled and directed their Bolo self, choosing to represent their real self in a particular way on the Bolo playing field. Grinch sees the real life self as the overarching administrator of the Bolo self; the Bolo self is a derivative of the real self:
My net personality is different than my real self, but much of it is derived from my real self. There is not much cross over from my real life, except when talking with other boloers about bolo.
This view questions the traditional idea of an autonomous, self-controlled integral and embodied self, but not so bluntly as a more schizophrenically tilted answer. In this case there remains a single self-controlled self, one that manages the Bolo self, but the whole is apparently not integral. However, the implicit hierarchical notion, with the Bolo self embedded in the real life self, lends some latitude to a vision of the whole self, with the subordinate Bolo self (and perhaps there are other subordinate selves, but for now I will restrict myself to the Bolo self) ensconced within the umbrella of the greater real life self.
Other Bolo players share this view of themselves. Beastmaster (real name: Michael Thomas) elaborates:
My Bolo identity doesn't cross over into my "non-net" life. When I play Bolo generally I tend to be aggressive (emphasis on generally), and find that Bolo can be an ideal way to relieve tension. An interesting fact was that when I went down to the Swat Bolo fest[5] people were surprised at how I look. I guess many of them expected me to be bigger and meaner or something. As far as personality, I guess I also tend to be more outrageous than I would with, say, someone from class. That could be accounted for by not really "knowing" the other players.
Beastmaster sees his Bolo identity as completely separated from his real life identity. As with Grinch, the two selves do not intersect. Note that Beastmaster attributes the difference in part to the factor of anonymity. He is able to act more "outrageous" because he doesn't really "know" the other players. The veil of anonymity present in the game shields him from the consequences of his actions, confining repercussions of his personality to within the Bolo world. One Bolo specifically noted this as a bad thing; Grimm (real name: Michael Koehler) wrote:
I try to have my net personality be exactly that of my normal personality. I think it's important to remember that despite the distance between players and the fact that you'll almost certainly never meet your opponents you are still people worth of respect. Too many people succumb to the temptation of anonymity and the freedoms that brings.
Two issues stand out immediately from his commentary. The first is the use of "try" to describe the expression of his Bolo identity; he implicitly recognizes that the Bolo identity is a conscious construction of the "normal personality." The second is his recognition of the "freedoms" that anonymity brings.
Another Bolo player, Allan Crossman, noted that his Bolo identity was an "extension" of his real self. Not all Bolo players see this separation, however. Several of those interviewed noted no distinction. They generally admitted that the realm of expression in Bolo was far more limited than in the real world, but what other players saw of them in Bolo was the same as what they would see in real life. Michael Morton, a Swarthmore student, characterized his net personality as "same as me," noting that "I'm always me." Guido (real name: Eric Walton, another Swarthmore student) told me that his Bolo identity "follows the way that I act in real life. My real self pervades everything that I do; Bolo is something that I do; ergo my real self pervades my Bolo self"; he allowed for the Bolo self to be somewhat distinct, but still primarily his real self.
The act of presenting oneself differently on-line is not automatic, and there are those who do not make any attempt to do so. But considering the case studies of myself, bitch, and Michael Scott (presented in the prolegomena), combined with the opinions above and some of what will follow, I believe that Bolo does present the opportunity for a self that is distinct from the real life self. The splintering necessary to produce this alter self is not automatic, and in fact must be consciously undertaken. How does this compare with the traditional conception of the autonomous, self-controlled integral and embodied self?
Before answering that question, we must consider the opportunities for alter egos in real life. The personality that we attribute to a friend is always predicated on the terms of our relationship: we know each other in an informal setting, so that is how we act around them. Getting to know someone in a more formal setting (such as student-teacher rather than as peers) could yield a completely different impression of the person. The regular routine of everyday life is filled with situations where a particular role must be adopted, one that is distinct from "regular" life: the acts of applying for a job or a bank loan, meeting your girlfriend's parents, or going out drinking with the guys all vary in what attendant behavior is considered appropriate. Most people naturally accommodate the situation within their personality: they act far more polite around their potential boss than with their drinking buddies. A Bolo player who asked to be referred to only as Joshua gave the most forthright agreement to the idea of different identities in real life; when asked if there are other areas of life where he has separate identities, he answered
Absolutely -- I put on different identities based on who I am around -- much like a filter on the sending end -- a series of constraints on how much of my inner core I allow to show.
Mecca (real name: Chris Howard) saw this phenomenon as normal; when I asked him about it, he answered, "Of course you present yourself differently in these types of situations. It's human nature to do so." One Bolo player, Guy (real name: Jeff McDowell), commented on how his Bolo self is remarkably similar to another role he undertakes in real life:
My bolo "personality" reflects my real life "personality" in pretty much all the situations that are similar. In Bolo I am regarded as one of the best players. Because of that, I try not to use profane language, spend a lot of time posting about useless stuff, and try to keep my cool in bad game situations (high lag, poor ally, etc.). My normal real life personality is not so serious, but in similar situations I act very similar. (For example, I am the manager for a computer lab on campus. When at work, I try to be much more serious.)
He views his position in the Bolo community as a respected, good player to be similar to a position of employment where he is expected to act in a professional manner, and thus treats the two situations identically. He goes on to describe how this set of identities for different roles is not the result of Bolo:
I don't feel that I use a separate identity in Bolo. While most Bolo players really don't have any idea of how I would act in a "normal" situation, I certainly don't feel like I treat Bolo any different from any of the other games I play (non-computer games included). I can see where this might be viewed as a separate identity (a gaming identity or something), but even so, it really isn't Bolo that caused it. It has been with me long before (and probably will be long after) I began player Bolo.
Guy admits to a variety of distinct selves embodied within him, which he adopts according to the situation. His Bolo self, which is still "him" yet not the same as his real life self, is indeed different than the self he portrays in other circumstances, and is evident as much in real life as on-line.
The personality embodied within each of these real life roles never varies too much from what we consider our real selves. In her writings Turkle has considered the variety of roles that are presented within a contemporary "everyday experience":
Now, in postmodern times, multiple identities are no longer so much at the margins of things. Many more people experience identity as a set of roles that can be mixed and matched, whose diverse demands need to be negotiated.[6]
We change aspects of our outward behavior, but we remain conscious of a contiguous self that continues before, through, and after the role. We are only able to change a limited amount of what we are to begin with; idiosyncrasies and habits cannot be simply willed away, speech patterns can't be consciously altered, and physical appearance is inalterable. The desire to change much of this may be present, but the ability to enact the change is not.
In this way I believe the traditional conception of the self is to some degree flawed. There is some element of a "core self" or a "super-self" that is consistent and maintained throughout all of the roles that an individual assumes, yet still it is altered somewhat in each situation. The core self controls how the self is expressed and is the master of the ostensibly distinct selves, which are in fact facets of the greater self. The whole is still autonomous and self-controlled, but only in terms of the core self; the particular role-playing selves are directed by the core. It is in the conception of an integral and embodied self that problems arise, for this multifaceted self is not completely integrated and embodies itself in a different way according to the circumstances. However, I would posit that it is the traditional conception that is incorrect; the advent of Bolo has indeed transformed the traditional conception, but only in a way that more accurately depicts the actual situation all along.
The ease of representing a new self within the Bolo world is what allows Bolo players to slip so quickly into their completely disparate alter egos. Real life alteration of the self cannot be complete and is difficult; disregarding the complexities of orchestrating the presentation of different clothing and demeanor, an individual must still deal with any reputation he may have or preconceived ideas as to how he should act. It is very difficult to overcome other people's perceptions. In Turkle's discussion of MUDs, she addresses the ability to switch between a variety of selves in real life:
In the past, such rapid cycling through different identities was not an easy experience to come by. Earlier in this century we spoke of identity as "forged." The metaphor of iron-like solidity captured the central value of a core identity, or what the sociologist David Riesman once called inner direction. Of course, people assumed different social roles and masks, but for most people, their lifelong involvement with families and communities kept such cycling under fairly stringent control. For some, this control chafed, and there were roles on the margins where cycling through could be a way of life.[7]
It is the "lifelong involvement with families and communities" that keep people from altering their personas too much. What is already known of you and about you by those you will interact with limits what roles you can adopt, for they already see you in a particular light. In the Bolo world, however, only what you wish to present is presented, and there are no preconceived ideas. A large aspect of the real self -- the physical body -- is completely absent, and what remains to portray oneself is easily edited to express the appropriate and desired effect. The potential for anonymity eliminates the repercussions of adopting new identities and prevents connections of one alter ego to another, allowing even more freedom to experiment with the facets of who we are. I maintain that this is no different from the way that we adopt particular roles in particular situations in real life, the only substantive differences being the medium by which the change is communicated and the ease with which it occurs. With the introduction of computer mediated conversation, we see that the self contains many more facets and fragments than previously suspected, which appear to varying degrees as a situation allows. Computer-mediated communication magnifies the potential for disparate representations of the self, but it is indeed a magnification of existing fragmentation and not the introduction of a new phenomenon. As the ease of representing oneself grows, so will the incidence of what appear to be fragmented selves -- but they will be no more fragmented than the selves we see in real life.
The Intersections of Bolo and Real Life.
When Beastmaster explained the differences between his Bolo identity and his real life identity, he commented on the "interesting fact...that when I went down to the Swat Bolo fest people were surprised at how I look. I guess many of them expected me to be bigger and meaner or something." This underlies the images we extrapolate from what is present on-line: we are not capable of thinking of a person solely in terms of what is presented on-line, but instead must construct an identity that incorporates all aspects of a real life self. Lea and Spears note that "gender, for example, can be communicated as a single binary unit of information, but (as we have already noted) can be enormously influential in shaping the forms and conduct of relations."[8] While physical gender is irrelevant to much of what happens on-line, perceptions of it still play a part in shaping conceptions; in the same way, physical appearance is irrelevant to a Bolo game, but people still incorporate it into their views of other players.
The Bolo self that appears on-line is often a manifestation of a personality that cannot also appear off-line. Above I have expounded upon possible explanations for this, among them the constraints of community and friends, and the inability to change some elements of a personality or appearance that are simply inalterable. Part of the result of this disparity is the ability to use the Bolo self to dabble in new areas of the self. Because the Bolo self is simply another expression of the real self, what the Bolo self undergoes can affect what is present in the real self. In some cases this can even border on Turkle's model of MUDs as a sort of psychotherapy[9], although any therapeutic role Bolo may play is unintended.
The opportunity to explore new horizons of the self within the Bolo community is large. FireIce (real name: Stephan Van Coppenole), who has since ceased playing Bolo, explains how his exploration of a new role in Bolo affected his real life self:
Well, I think my identity on the net now is different than back when I used to play Bolo...but my identity on IRC and Bolo was about the same as in real life, except that I was more confident and more authoritative in Bolo and IRC than in real life (at the later stages of my Bolo career). But when I left Bolo, and went back home, for some reason that idea of standing up for what I believe (like I did in the vert flamewar, and other stuff) stayed with me and I was more willing to stand up to other people when they did threaten what I thought was right, so in a way the way my "Bolo personality" influenced a little bit how I was after I stopped playing Bolo. (sic)
In real life, standing firm on a controversial issue can bring severe consequences; within Bolo, however, they extend no further than the game itself. FireIce's ability to experiment within this relatively safe environment enabled him to find confidence in doing so in real life.
Beastmaster had a similar experience, although something of the reverse of FireIce's: his personality became less aggressive after playing Bolo. He explains that the anonymity of the game induced more aggression initially, but that eventually flagged as a more humorous method of expression came to the forefront:
As far as character goes, I guess I do look at it in terms of a character, rather than another identity, although there cannot be much difference. I think perhaps "in character" and "personality" are just shades of the same thing. I would say I'm in character, and now that I think about it, the character (or who I am on the net) has gradually evolved into ME. Let's see if I can explain this better. Above, I stated that I use Bolo as a way to relieve aggression by being aggressive. Over the course of 4 years of Bolo, I have gone from being majorly aggressive, to being aggressive but also humorous (or at least attempted humor). This is much more like my "real world" self. I guess perhaps "Beastmaster" began as a personality, but is now just me.
In the same way that Beastmaster previously noted that his net personality was more "outrageous" because he didn't know the people he was dealing with, perhaps the aggressive side of his Bolo persona dissipated as he established ties within the Bolo community. As his identity as Beastmaster gained status (Beastmaster was a well-known name player for a long time and still is to some extent), he accumulated more attachments within Bolo and thus diminished the anonymous aspect of the game. This led him to abandon some of the experimentation he had undertaken, until the effect of the attachments was the same as "knowing" people in real life.
Of all accounts, however, Grinch's demonstrates the most substantial effect on the real life self on the Bolo self.
I believe that I have grown from my experiences in the Bolo culture. I started playing Bolo in eighth grade. At that time, I was very shy and had few friends. I met people in the computer lab, played Bolo with them, and became part of a group. My Bolo identity began then, but grew the most when Internet Bolo became possible. There I was with people that didn't know me at all, and I could be whoever I wanted. I acted out all the things I would normally be shy to do (say I'm horny, curse at people). In being so free, I had the chance to grow a lot. I learned much of my social skills from Bolo -- now I'm very social.
The complete anonymity and relative safety of the Bolo world allowed Grinch to indulge in behavior outside of what he could normally experience; the lack of real life consequences let him push boundaries until he had established ones that he saw as fitting. Gaining confidence in social skills requires practice and repetition, and Bolo gave Grinch the opportunity to do so within Bolo without the normal consequences of a faux pas.
My own interactions within Bolo mirror Grinch's to a limited extent. Although I have not used Bolo as a social tool or a means to explore the boundaries of my personality, I have used it as an escape from real life. My primary interest in the game is the game itself; I enjoy the strategy and arcade-game aspects of Bolo. But Bolo can intersect with my own life in a negative way, in that Bolo can be a way to avoid real life concerns. Because Bolo is so distant from the rest of my life, and because I can enter it completely anonymously and leave all else behind, and because I can become completely and totally involved in a Bolo game until my mind is fully occupied by it, I will sometimes consciously choose to play Bolo to get my mind off of another, real life subject. By being anonymous within Bolo, I am able to play the game and the game alone with no baggage attached; there becomes no more element to a Bolo game than pure Bolo. This attitude is treated with some disdain by much of the Bolo community, who prefer to treat themselves as a community and thus decry anonymous players, but it allows a release that is not available otherwise. Similar to those who enjoy big cities because they can be anonymous, or dark movie theaters because they can enjoy the movie without worrying about what else is around them, I indulge in Bolo to be anonymously occupied.
As technology moves beyond each successive pale, so too does the human identity. The original social arena has become "real life," or just "RL" to those already exploring new horizons. When physical interaction becomes passé, new mediums arise, each promising an exciting and unique form of expression. Each medium presents oneself in a different array of electrons; new sensory filters appear, screening out various dimensions of RL communication: the third dimension is the first to go as the monitor flattens, with smell and taste soon to follow, and visual imagery next in line. Eventually the self can be reduced to whatever cyber-plastic concoction Sony or IBM is marketing next, so long as we all agree to buy. But how do we construe the concoctions? When faced with a glowing line of text that claims to be human, what image stirs of the flesh on the other end? The self that is displayed isn't necessarily the self that displays...or is it?
Bolo is just one more way to express oneself over the Internet, marginally different in practice from any other medium but virtually identical in substance. The effect that Bolo can have on a sense of identity is far removed from the effects of real life but not vastly different. Bolo opens the door to another role to be played, another medium for expression, that is as much an infringement on the autonomous self as is "minding your P's and Q's" is in real life. Bolo presents new schisms to the self, but they are no more revolutionary than what is already present in that same self.
[1] I realize that the differentiation between "real life" and "cyberspace" is an ambiguous one, and some would claim there is very little distinction between the two. However, for lack of a better term, I will continue to refer to what we think of as "normal," physical, non-computer-mediated interaction as "real life."
[2] Exactly what constitutes "social skills" in the Bolo social environment is hard to explain, exactly as it would be hard to expound on what composes real life social skills. Deference to established players, submission to the rules of the Bolo community, entertaining or witty banter, proclivity for humor, and strength of character are some obvious traits that come to mind, but there can certainly be more and the division is not that precise.
[3] Turkle, Life on the Screen, p. 199
[4] Within the Bolo community, the term "Bolo god" is used to describe the very best players at any given time. Being a Bolo god is akin to more or less being at the top of the Bolo social ladder.
[5] In February 1995, I and several other Swat Bolo players issued a general invitation to the Bolo community to come to Swarthmore on a particular weekend to meet each other in real life. A total of eight Bolo players from the east coast attended (2 from U. of Maine, 2 from U. of Delaware, 1 from Dartmouth, 2 from Williams, and 1 from Yale), in addition to the 5 or so active Swarthmore Bolo players at the time.
[6] Turkle, Life on the Screen, p. 180
[7] Turkle, Life on the Screen, p. 179
[8] Lea & Spears, Love at First Byte?, Under-studied Relationships, p. 219
[9] Turkle, Life on the Screen, p. 199