[DGD] Pet peeves for users in a MUD

[Shentino]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Noah Gibbs <noah_gibbs at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>  Pretend they're 99% reliable for this, which is awfully optimistic.  You
> still have a social problem.
>
>  You're going to be penalizing your players because, although you can't
> prove it, you think they cheated at least some of those times.  Penalizing
> non-cheaters for cheating makes them fiercely angry at you.  Penalizing
> only-sometimes-cheaters for times when they didn't actually cheat actually
> makes them angrier.


My "punishment" was more along the lines of failing to.

But I suppose not being generous counts as taking away a given when you're
dealing with an entitlement mentality.


> So expect this system to be a customer service nightmare -- and you won't
> know when you're penalizing innocent people, but some of them pretty likely
> are.


A point.


> Also, here's at least one case where your metric would semi-fail.  Imagine
> a mother or older sibling playing, while attempting to watch a baby or small
> younger sibling.  Now imagine the network connection uses a wired cable.
>  The player will be most distracted when in combat or other dangerous
> situations, and the baby or young sibling will quickly discover that yanking
> the cable gets a large, entertaining reaction from their caretaker.
> Especially since the caretaker will also soon be fuming because you're
> calling them a cheater.


Ye olde "RL griefing"...why do I forget about this?



For now, back to the drawing board.

I'm not sure I should grant grace in the first place for quits that are both
clean and doubtful, lest I make a "cheater" angry about taking it away.