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

[Marian Griffith]

On Sat 27 Dec, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
> Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
> >On Mon 22 Dec, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
> >> Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
> >> >At 08:54 PM 12/21/97 PST8PDT, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

Afraid my reply is going off on a course that has little to do with
muds...

> >> 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?

> >Hardly.  Muds are a social game.  This implies social rules and some
> >control of whether those rules are obeyed or not. How much rules and
> >how much control is up to the individual game administrator.  And of
> >course the fact there is some control is part of those social rules,
> >so players have a right to be told about it.  They should not demand
> >them to be absent though.

> I disagree.  You will have social norms, society imposed norms, but
> you may have multiple societies in a well-working mud.

I was talking about the social aspect of the mud as a whole. Not the
different social groups within the game itself. I believe there is a
difference between the two.

> MUDs may be
> games, but first and foremost they constitute communication platforms.
> (MUD designers hide from the legal responsibilty of user provided
> content by calling them "communication systems".  Then they claim the
> need for exessive logging.  Beats me.)

I agree that under normal situations logging or snooping should not be
necessary,  and ought to be restricted to public communication anyway.
Only under the most desperate circumstances should  the admin consider
to log private conversations and by that time the should also think if
they want to keep the game running if that is what is needed to do so.

> The fact that they are communication systems make them sensitive and a
> subject for special attention, especially from a professional software
> designers POV. A "right" to be informed about supervision?  Who is
> going to enforce the right?  Who can enforce the right?  Only the
> system itself.  Those who design the systems have a responsibility.

A social right to be informed. But the snoop nor the log command should
be available to one single administrator of a game.

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

> >I'm convinced you're serious. I do not agree however. Admins are part
> >of the game and thus are bound by the same social rules.

> Social rules might work if you can be spotted.

Not sure what you're trying to say. I'm sorry.

> >They've been
> >granted some special powers for specific tasks. Any other use is just
> >abuse,  and should be treated in the same way  as any player breaking
> >the rules is treated.

> Actually, they haven't been granted anything.  They have just given
> themselves the power.  I don't see how you can throw out the owner of
> the system?

The same should be said about just about any government.
But yes, if somebody creates a game and makes it available to others
they have every right to do with it as they please. However it makes
no difference who grants the power.=20

> >And if you have a really sick player then the admin should not warn him
> >that he is being logged.  By that time he may have done too much damage
> >already.

> I disagree, only because this again violates the principle about
> knowing in advance what happens with your own information.  If users
> are not notified about when logging is taking place, then there is no
> mechanisms to limit the usage of logging.  In principle you will end
> up with logging as a first resort.  I hope I have made it clear that
> this is a position which I find difficult to defend from a moral
> (philosophical) POV.

You have, and you are right too. However there is also the point of
expediency.

> Marian mentions some examples of harassments:
> >Repeatedly linkspamming the victim (by dropping hundreds of breads in a
> >room during a fight). =20

> Design flaw, not really harassment.

Probably a design flaw but most definitely harassment.

> >Healing the monsters the victim was fighting.
> But this is a great strategy, not harassment???

Actually the mud in question did not allow PK and the player did the
healing  specifically to make playing impossible for the victim.  He
also did it repeatedly which makes it harassment as far as I am con-
cerned.

> >To spread a disease wherever the victim was going until people began
> >to avoid him.
> Design flaw.

I do not think it is possible to prevent malicious behaviour of the
players no matter how carefully the game is designed.  And the fact
that it is possible does not make it less harassment.

> >Gossiping about the victim and trying to cause arguments be-
> >tween the victim's friends. =20
> Social interaction, should not be an admin issue.

Actually this should very much be an admin issue.  Players who take
their RL conflict into the game must be dealt with before they ruin
the fun for other players.

> >Spreading logs of private conversation  of the victim. =20
> Where did he get the logs? A possible design flaw.

I think this case was handled by the university. The player had
illegal access to the computer that ran the mud.

> >Making false complaints to the imms about the victim.
> This is worse, and a good reason to start warned logging.  Of course,
> I don't think a good admin would take action against a user based on
> hearsay.

True and it was dealt with as such. However without logs to back up
any decision it is hard to judge cases like this.  I am not sure if
any player involved should be warned about being logged.

> >Real life stalking. And attempted extorsion of certain favours.
> Dunno what you refer to here, but if it happens outside the system,
> then it should be of no concern from an admin POV.

You are right about the first one.  The second case was of a group
of high level players forcing low level players  to do things they
would not normally do. They were smart enough not to force players
to do anything serious,  and did it in such a way  that complaints
were perceived by the admin as whining.

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

> >In my brief experience age does not seem to make much difference with
> >how immature some people can behave.

> It matters for how responsible the (adult) admins are for the players'
> mental health. (Especially sexual harassment, requests for sexual
> favors etc.)

The last thing is something I feel very strongly about and believe is
serious enough  that there is no reason to give the perpetrator a se-
cond chance. Any complaints of sexual harassment in any form deserves
logging for a while  and upon confirmation immediate exclusion of the
player. No warnings, no excuses. The proper authorities should be in-
formed also.

Marian
--=20
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey