[MUD-Dev] Wild west (was Guilds & Politics)

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Derrick Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Matt Chatterley wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Mike Sellers wrote:
> > > At 01:17 PM 12/10/97 PST8PDT, Alex Oren wrote:

[Snip]
> > The other large problem is that many game administrators think having a
> > player-run council will be great, and wipe out problems. However, they
> > fail to define the duties of the council and expect it to enforce things
> > it cannot (for instance, things wizards normally use logs to enforce and
> > other OOC matters, when the council is an IC construct). Also, they
> > dislike surrendering power to the council in some cases, and instead begin
> > to 'direct' the council - basically turning it into a front for
> > themselves.
>  
> Hrm...If you're expecting players to help admin the mud, why not simply
> promote a core group (those you feel can be trusted) to godhood (or
> whatever equivalent) so that they actually have the ability to do their
> job.  Giving greater powers to fewer players lets you err on the side of
> caution a bit more in selecting them from your playerbase.
> Personally, I'd make my selection, log _everything_ that player does for a
> week or two (just to make sure), then invite the player to join the staff
> after the logs had been thorougly reviewed.  Time consuming, but you'll
> get a lot better view of your potential staffers this way.

Quite definitely. The problem is in the perceptions of administrators, as
to what the player-council should be doing. They are often assigned to
handle 'IC' matters, but end up dealing with them in 'OOC' ways, and such.
This also tends to happen on games that do not predefine their IC/OOC
borders, more than others. Perhaps one example is that a player steals
from another (note the one-sided approach). The response from the council
is to 'sin bin' the thief for several minutes. There is absolutely no
chance of getting away with theft in this situation.

[Snip]

> As to strict player-based law enforcement, I'll probably restrict it to a
> simple outlaw/bounty system, with the gameworld and imm-staff setting
> bounties.  I guess I'm too much of a control freak to like the idea of
> players choosing who has the 'real' power withing the mud.  Problems I
> would envision would be the over-consolidation of mortal power into a
> tight-knit group, and rampant abuses (mortals can be too easily coerced or
> bribed).

Yeah. The real power with IC matters will rest entirely with my automated
system, with the approval/balance team presiding to keep the system inline
(indirect interference). OOCly, administrators will take care of all
matters. Of course, players can set up 'psuedo-legal' systems - mafia,
etc, which enforce their own 'laws'.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	ICQ: 5580107
"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." -Einstein