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

[Travis S. Casey]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
> Marian Griffith <gryphon at iaehv.nl> wrote:
> >> 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
>=20
> Wait.  "every right to do with it as they please" ?? !!  If it was a
> single-user system with no external effects, yes... Or rather maybe...
> We are talking about multi-user communication systems.  I can't see
> how they can "have every right to do with it as they please", because
> "it" affects other people...

However, it affects only those people who have chosen to allow it to
affect them.  So long as the policies about logging, snooping, etc.,
are clearly posted, I see no problem.  The players are warned and can
choose to visit a mud that doesn't log if they're concerned about it.

IMHO, the situation is analogous to a store that uses security cameras
and records them -- if you don't like the idea that complete strangers
might see you scratching yourself or picking your nose, simply don't
shop there.

To put it another way, a mud can be viewed as a club.  In order to=20
join, you must agree to abide by the club's rules.  If at any time
you decide that you don't like those rules any more, you're free to=20
leave. =20

To make some more analogies:=20

If you don't want strangers to see your private parts, don't join a
nudist's club.  If you don't want people to try to beat you up, don't
join an amateur boxer's association.  If you don't want people to send=20
you music you don't want and then expect you to pay for it, don't join
a record club.

All of these are things that are illegal (in most countries, at least)
when done to you without your consent -- just as recording what someone
does and says is.  However, if you join an organization knowing that
these things will be done to you by it, you have, by implication,=20
consented to have them done to you.  Thus, so long as it is made clear
to players from the start that anything they say or do is going to be
logged and may be accessible to other players and admins, I see no=20
moral, legal, or ethical problem with it.

I *would* suggest to anyone doing such logging that it may be a good
idea to give the warning about logging, and any other such warnings
they may wish to give, and then require the player to press a key to
indicate that they've read the warnings and either consent to them or
don't consent.  Of course, if they don't consent, you can simply not
give them a character and log them off.  This is the same basic=20
approach used by AOL and many other service providers that either
log information or do random monitoring, and it might save you from
legal hassles in the long run.

A thought I have yet to see anybody raise about the logging/"time=20
travel" scenario:  muds are, among other things, virtual worlds in which
we can see how people might interact under different sets of laws than
those which prevail in reality.  This mud is creating a world in which
postcognition, possibly even remote postcognition, is possible.  In such
a world, there is no assurance of perfect privacy.  *There is no other way
in which such a world can be modeled except through logging of the type
described.*  It would be interesting to see how people would act if they
knew that all their actions were subject to review -- and how better to
simulate such an environment than to actually implement it?
--
       |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel at io.com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'  Keeper of the rec.games.design FAQ:
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)      http://www.io.com/~efindel/design.html