I suspect this is the case. Why else would they ask for more
compliments?
It is possible that they may take the compliments, analyze the
sentence structure with some parsing algorithm, and keep the
interesting bits for re-insertion into other sentences. At least, if
they can truly generate random sentences, then they can also do this.
You could do the same thing with 3d models. In fact, in some respects
the parsing would be easier, as the hierarchy of geometric components
would be implied by the 3d file format in use.
> One thing that makes all of this work, is that contextually speaking,
> we know that we are supposed to be receiving complements. Perhaps if
> a user is told that there's a certain way they are supposed to look at
> things, then their perception of story will be held together much more
> concretely than if they were to simply walk in without knowing "what's
> going on."
But if the user is the one creating the 'world' then it is up to them
how they interpret it? We should not be providing a finished product
and saying "here come and see what I have done" as is the case with
art or verse. We should be concentrating on providing the tools for
the _user_ to create the "master piece"?
Why is it so important whether the "user" gets to reinterpret or
rewrite everything? Why is their view somehow more paramount than
that of the person who created a given piece of VR artwork? What if
the user and artist are the same person? Then you simply have a
"user" providing a finished product and saying "here come and see what
I have done." You have the same authorial politics.
I think the issue you are pointing at is "who should have control of
online editing? How much control?" That all depends entirely on the
whims of whomever owns a given piece of intellectual property that we
are referring to as VR Art. That person may wish to make their
creation alterable, or may not. There is no a priori reason to
postulate one approach as morally superior to the other - they are
just different approaches.
Cheers,
Brandon