[MUD-Dev] Mud governance

[Koster]

On Monday, October 20, 1997 4:23 PM, coder at ibm.net wrote:

> I'd also reference Lorry's various polemics and musings on 
Wizardhood and
> the early MIST days in particular...

Hmm, I'd like to see these musings and polemics. Where might I be able 
to find them?

> Other goodies might include some of the early discussion on MOO-Cows 
(I
> think there's still an archive about somewhere -- I certainly don't 
have a
> copy alas).  The recently Gods list has also had some extremely
> RP/social-milleau based discussions on management styles and 
handling of
> staff on MUSHes.  I can provide a full dump of the Gods traffic to 
date if
> wished and let you sort out from there what you want.

Absolutely. You've got my email address, or if it is large enough, we 
can set up an ftp dump someplace...

> The Habitat papers are also very good reading (I posted them here), 
but
> I'm sure you're familiar with these already.

Yes. IMHO, anyone seriously doing "this" (vague term for all this 
stuff we're doing) needs to have read them.

> Finally, the very very early days of this least (back in the CC 
days) had
> fairly extensive debate on the deliniation between 
social/administrative
> problems and technical solutions.  I, in particular, drew and still 
draw
> that line very hard.  If wished I can send you a dump of that 
traffic
> (unsorted, unthreaded, etc, you pick out the gems from the dreck).

Hmm, sure. Does that mean you'd prefer not to open the topic on the 
list again?

> >I've never heard of the Black Rose incident... anyone care to 
elaborate
> >in email?
>
> I posted the Black Rose incident here a short while ago. 
 Essentially it
> was a long and rambling log of a discussion between members of the 
Black
> Rose gang (a group of PK'ers on a MUSH) and an Admin on the validity 
of
> their wish to PK and its effects on the game.
>
> Mostly it was a strong proof of the ineffectualness of attempting 
to
> govern by concensus.

I'd also add that it is a great example of why exactly the people who 
are in contact with the players need to be expert manipulators, smooth 
talking politicians, and in general, well, the sort of people you put 
in contact with the public in any other discipline. Someone who could 
cut to the chase (no offense against the admins in the incident in 
question) could have resolved that issue nicely in about two minutes, 
and left a larger number of people happy. Allowing it to proceed as it 
did merely resulted in leaving everyone unhappy instead. Sometimes 
ruthlessness is called for, and sometimes so is manipulation for the 
greater good (my, how machiavellian I grow in my old age...).

It's also interesting to look at the log from the perspective of later 
discussions, such as Bartle's paper, and realize that this was the tip 
of a much larger iceberg about which the admins knew absolutely 
nothing. And had they known more, it might well have drastically 
affeted their perceptions of the problem and thus their solution (or 
lack thereof).

-Raph