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

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
>At 08:54 PM 12/21/97 PST8PDT, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>Hang on there!  You're talking about a whole bunch of system-specific
>issues with one person's proposed design.  I can't speak to someone else's
>design or design goals.  All I said was that I don't see anything fascist
>about logging all in-system communications, particulary if you tell people
>you're going to do so up front, and that all communications will be kept
>confidential.  Of course if you *don't* follow these self-restrictions you
>could buy all kinds of trouble. =20

Well, I realize that the term "fascist" isn't the proper term, I used
it because I don't know the proper english term. I still think it
describes pretty well what this scheme easily can turn into.

The main thing is, being logged is unpleasant.  If people monitor you,
it means they don't trust you, that they are going to use that
information to your disadvantage. That isn't freedom.  Freedom is what
MUDs are about?

A robust systems should protect the users from the admins!!! I'm
serious!

>>I think the proper way to handle this problem is to allow the
>>_offended_ person to turn on logging of incoming harrasment.  A slip
>>is ok, persistant repeated harrasment isn't.
>
>That might work -- if this logging was uneditable by anyone.  But I think
>that if people knew their communications were logged (maybe purged after a
>week or something), there would be a lot less harassment in the first plac=
e. =20

Well, the trouble is, what is harassment?  In my opinion a first time
"harassment" is ok.  To continue after the offended person asks you to
stop bothering him/her isn't.  I personally don't think saying "fuck
off you big fat asshole, find someone else to screw" is harassment,
some would...  If you have a really sick player then you (admin) could
tell him that you have had several complaints and that all of his
actions will be logged.

Note that I am not talking about systems targeting 7-12 years old
kids, I'm talking about systems targeting 13+.

>>Anyway, I don't see why more than 1 and only 1 person should have
>>access to logs.  All systems have wizard "assholes" (from a user POV).
>
>That's a matter of scale.  If you have several thousand people actively
>using your system, you're going to need more than one set of eyes on
>problem areas.  Anyway, the problem you're talking about is training
>admins, not precisely how many people can view logs -- a single person with
>access but who is a tyrant or bully is far worse than a dozen trained,
>discreet, and fair-minded people with similar access. =20

It is a matter of probability. If that one person is a tyrant then it
probably will show in the system as well.  I think having 4 people,
where one of them is a simple minded (not necessarily a tyrant) is
worse.  I also believe that a group of people won't take the
responsibility as easily as a single discrete person, depending on the
environment...  Actually these things are really difficult.  You could
make it a little better by logging log access.  It IS extremely
tempting to check the logs of annoying users who say a lot of funny
weird things...

>As an aside, I heard recently that UO has now sold over 90,000 copies to
>end-users.  If true, and if their churn is not incredibly high, this is a
>good sign for our section of the industry -- if not for the mental health
>of their support people. =20

The problem with UO as an example case is that it is not selling on
it's own merits...  I wonder how the fact that it is an "extention" of
a singleplayer game affects user behaviour?  I would think that a lot
of the players would try to play UO-Online as if it was a single
player game.  I guess you could say the same thing about Meridian59,
as it use the same type of graphic engine often seen in single player
kill-everything-you-see type of games.

>No, I don't think so, at least not in a commercial situation.  Say what you
>like about me, about my game, my employees, my friends, whatever -- no
>problem (people have never been shy about doing any of these things from
>what I've seen :) ).

Well, in Meridian59 a player told me to use another chat system for
talking about some less favorable admin issues.

>that's okay too.  However: if someone complains that you are harassing them
>and the logs agree; or if there's evidence that you've been trying to hack
>the game and the logs bear that out, well... that's a different story.  All

That last case is yet another case that I would even view as illegal
(or at least in the gray area) according to our laws.  To monitor a
persons personal communication to discover a criminal act is in my
country something that only the police can do, and I don't even think
they are allowed to put mikes in rooms at all.  There are good reasons
for why illegally taped conversations are dismissed as evidence in a
courtroom.  In fact, you are not even allowed to tape your own
phonecalls, unless the other person is told so explicitly.

>>It's funny though, that logging and checking up on employees is rather
>>common in the US, just as logging and chekcing up on individuals was
>>common in old East Germany and Romania! :^) Do I have to mention FBI's
>>concerns about not being able to monitor encrypted communication??
>
>Hang on -- we're talking about *VERY* different things.  Logging and
>checking up on employees in the US is, so far as I know, *extremely*
>uncommon (the articles and such you see about this are vastly overblown).
>Certainly in terms of our personal lives, people in the US enjoy more
>anonymity and freedom of movement and association than just about anyone
>else.  Any comparison there with Romania or East Germany is ludicrous (FBI
>and NSA concerns notwithstanding). =20

The main point is still valid, because monitoring employees could in
fact be extremely useful and even necessesary in R&D departments.
Monitoring users in an entertainment/communication system isn't!

Employees rights are essentially weak in the US (compared to Norway)
partially due to attitude, partially due to a lack of strong unions.
US is the country of Taylor's scientific management, remember? :) (The
UK is known to be quite bad as well, actually the lack of rights is
currently what gives them a comptetitive edge!)

Unfortunatly this attitute shows in american products we are being
exposed to.

>However: we're talking about non-governmental logging of conversations
>taking place within private, for-profit game-areas here.

The problem is, the difference isn't as clear. The MUD administration
is a government.  If you don't like how we handle things, move to a
different state :-).  If you don't like our phone-company's policy use
a different company.  All swell, except when there is no other company
offering the service with a proper policy.  This will get worse (more
drastic) as virtual communities provide more and more functionality.
One has to make sure that one's moral is valid in the general case.  I
hope you don't think it is ok for phonecompanies to perform exessive
logging?

A swedish author has written a short-story that illustrates the
problem of exessive monitoring quite well.  The author provides lots
of trivial non-sensitive information.  But the combination of this
information is extremely sensitive (he is having an affair).

I'm against all kinds of unnecessary monitoring and storage of
information.  Especially information that can be used in combination
with other pieces of information.  The computerized society ought to
provide freedom. Unfortunatly, so far it is a threat to personal
freedom.  I view this type of control as perversion.

>there's no loss of civil rights there.  And if someone accuses you of
>harassing them and you haven't done so, or it's been a misunderstanding,
>you'll be mighty glad for the logs being there. =20

In fact, I would be mighty glad if I was never logged at all.  If
people think I harass them and don't accept my appologies, then I
think that is their problem.  If I get kicked out of a system because
I happend to tell someone to "fuck off" then that is a sign of a sick
fascist administration, not of harassment.

Logging all the activity of 100 users because 1 user occasionally say
or do something some of the other users dislike is bad... Very bad...

Ola.