[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[Mike Sellers]

At 04:38 PM 12/7/97 PST8PDT, Felix A. Croes wrote:
>Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
>> At 12:09 PM 12/6/97 PST8PDT, Felix A. Croes wrote:
>> >Unless the power to affect the game is available to everyone, this is
>> >still what you called an externally-imposed solution -- there has to
>> >be a sheriff to appoint the deputees.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.  How is having a PC Sheriff appointed by 
>> a PC Mayor who is elected by the PCs themselves an externally-imposed
>> solution?  I'll grant you that the Sheriff's powers are enabled by the
>> game, and to that degree it is external -- but we're talking about a
>> virtual world where at some level *everything* is externally imposed,
>> including basic things like gravity.  (And as discussed, I think you could
>> call this "Sheriff" solution a first-generation solution... there are more
>> elegant ways to get the same effect, of course.)  
>
>The sheriff was my metaphor for the meddling external administrator, and
>the deputees are the right-minded players.  

Ah, sorry.  I thought you were referring back to my earlier
Mayor/Judge/Sheriff example.  I agree that if the law is administered by an
untouchable wiz, you've got the same old dysfunctional-paternalistic
problem on your hands.  

>What I meant is that to
>seek out certain players and give them special powers -- apart from
>my doubts as to whether this will work at all -- is not going to
>significantly reduce the workload for administrators.  Rather, it is
>going to put them one step away from the power of influencing things.

No, even in the worst case (IME) it does reduce, or spread, the work load
of doing customer support activities.  This comes at a price, in that the
players with the special powers ("Guides" on M59) are sometimes seen as
turncoats, spies, advanced cheaters, egomaniacs, little dictators, or
brown-nosers -- all with some (if small) degree of validity.  

>If you do go about it in the way that you suggest above, letting
>players vote for a police to keep order, what you accomplish is
>that every troublemaker will consider bringing down this system as
>his highest goal.  They will form the group of most dedicated voters.

Yep.  It's important to realize this: if there's one thing that advanced
"troublemakers" do well, it's organize themselves (see
<http://www.dragonorder.com> for an example!).  And if everyone is tied to
their town in closed universe, this could be a problem -- unless the
regular citizenry act to take back their town and put in place strong law
enforcement.  In a more open universe, the citizens could take back their
town or contain the problem areas or go start a new one; it's important
that they have these options open (which they're not on the vast majority
of muds, it's true).  

>> >In my experience, the mature, responsible players are even less
>> >motivated than the paid staff to deal with the jerks.  Dealing with
>> >the jerks is not actually a very enjoyable occupation.
>>
>> Maybe.  This does not fit my experience, at least when these players are
>> given the equivalent of *limited* wiz powers.  They are only unmotivated
>> when nothing they do is going to make a difference anyway.  
>
>It depends on their powers, then.  What did you have in mind?

Alas, I can't say publicly right now.  Something less than the ability to
crack open the earth and send their enemies hurtling to their doom, though.
;)  

>
>> >Also, I think that you perhaps use the idea of letting the game solve
>> >itself too easily.  Any workable solution has to include the troublemakers
>> >in the game, too.  
>>
>> Good heavens, yes.  This is precisely what I meant about creating social
>> ecologies.  Briefly, the "troublemakers" take on the role of "decomposers"
>> in biological ecologies -- they are important to redistributing power and
>> wealth, just as vultures and worms are important to redistributing the
>> energy encased in any consumer, so the producers can use it again.  
>
>Isn't this rather a high-flying description for 14 year old brats in search
>of 13 year old chicks to bully?

Maybe, maybe not.  But in any case, that profile is not the most common one
I've seen of troublesome users.  My canonical profile is an intelligent man
or woman about 20-25 years old, some college or recently graduated, not a
geek but not terrifically popular either, with home-related issues just a
bit above the norm.  There are significant variations of course, but I
strongly believe that at a deep level, these are people who have not found
their own societal niche as yet, and who are feeling a bit ungrounded about
the whole process.  (Shoot, maybe I _should_ write a paper about this.)

>If you want to include them in your mud's social structure, you have to
>make them in some measure necessary.  But whatever role you plan for them,
>they will not do it.

Heh.  It's like herding feral cats.  We can't tell them where to go (or not
to bite us), but we *can* construct the landscape of the game such that
where they want to go tends to be where we would like them to go too.  It's
not a perfect, neatly-wrapped solution (psychology is always messy ;) ),
but it's better than the terrible anger, frustration, and anxiety I had to
soothe daily in M59 (and that I've recognized in various forms on other
muds). 


Mike Sellers                                    Chief Alchemist
mike at online-alchemy.com                         Online Alchemy              

        Combining art & science to create new worlds.