174 LANGUAGE AND THE INTERNET
MUGs, there seems to be no end to the lexical inventiveness. Using
the wildcard convention, the whole MUD domain is sometimes
referredtoasMU∗.
MOOs do not quite fit within the last abbreviation. MOO stands
for ‘MUD Object Orientated’, referring to the programmed objects
(roads, furniture, weapons, etc.) which can be created and manip-
ulated within the imaginary world. First devised by US computer
scientist Stephen White in 1990, there are now many MOO genres
also, such as LambdaMOO (the most frequented social world), Me-
diaMOO, and the population studied by Lynn Cherny, ElseMOO.^4
Those who retain an affection for MUD as a superordinate term
usually refer to themselves as MUDders or MUDsters; those who
identify with MOOs as a separate genre refer to themselves as
MOOers or MOOsters. Many neologisms exist: MOOmen,
MOOwomen, MOOcode, MOOtalk, MOOsex, etc. Someone who
is seriously unhappy with the way an interaction is going may have
a character commit MOOicide. And just as one can ‘mud’ (‘I was
mudding all night’) so one can ‘moo’. According to the surveys
to date, most MUD players are young, aged 19–25, often students
(using free college access), though the range reaches into the 40s,
and could extend as more people learn about the medium.^5 The
majority are male – or claim to be.
Because not all MUDs are games, in the usual sense, there is
some uncertainty of usage over how to refer to those who actively
participate: the termplayersis widespread, butusersis preferred
by some who want to get away from the gaming connotations,
especially in MOOs, which are not games in the sense that peo-
ple score points, win, and lose. In all cases, though, a distinction
needs to be made between players and thecharactersthey create. A
(^4) It is an interesting question whether text-based virtual environments will survive, in their
present form, once more sophisticated communicative technology becomes available (see
ch. 8). If they do not, then the information in this chapter will in due course become of
largely historical interest – though not totally so, for some of the linguistic features iden-
tified could be retained by future varieties. Apart from this, the current MUD situation
also illustrates very well the sort of linguistic thinking that takes place when people adopt
5 a new medium and adapt it to their individual interests.
Cherny (1999) is a rare example, to date, of an in-depth linguistic study of an Internet
variety. As such, its influence on my observations in this chapter will be pervasive.