[MUD-Dev] Mud governance

[coder at ibm.net]

On 24/10/97 at 06:43 AM, S001GMU at nova.wright.edu said:
>Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:49:18 +0000 (PST8PDT)
>From: coder at ibm.net

>>The Habitat papers and others suggest the value of handling such in-game. 
>>It certainly reflects on player value when you do.  I'd question the
>>requirement for "popular control".  It is almost tantamount to a
>>requirement for democracy; an experiment for which I don't see much sign
>>of success.

>Full blown democracy would probably fail, yeah, but I think you do need
>to accept some feedback from the players as to the effectiveness of the
>judicial system, which amounts to at least a little 'popular control'. If
>you ignore everything the players say, they will cast their final vote by
>not playing anymore.  :)

I think the large point that is commonly ignored is that the gestalt of
players and games are a sympathetic system.  The standard approach is to
try and analyse and approach them as distinct entities, prompting such
curious questions as, "What do we need to do to the game to attract more
players?" and "What sorts of players do we want for our games?" which tend
to ignore the fact that each is a byrpduct of and reflection of the other. 
They ignore the fact that players+game are greater than the sum of their
parts, and that touching any factor within that gestalt will cause ripple
effects thoughout the system, quite likely changing the values of boths
players and the game before its done.

Think of it like spaghetti code.

Of course the bigger problem is that this view creates far more problems
than it solves.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
----------(*)                              Internet: coder at ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...