[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[J C Lawrence]

On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 01:46:21 -5 
Jon A Lambert<jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I'm questioning the direct linkage between real violence and mud
> violence.  How can one voluntarily and willingly participate in a
> game where violence is possible, while maintaining that there is
> such a link?  I would maintain that willing participation in such a
> environment is tantamount to endorsing the position that violence
> does not occur in muds or that this "sort" of violence is quite
> different than real violence and is acceptable.  In addition,
> acceptance of "violence" in such a context does not necessarily
> translate into the way one lives one's real life.

A very minimalist and impersonal interpretation of MUDs and their
structure:

  A MUD defines a virtual space which may contain virtual objects.

  Some or all of those objects are proxies for humans (players).

  By definition a virtual space has a concept of state.

  That state definition can be maintained either by the server
  (classic MUD), the players (IRC), or some combination of the two.

  Objects have internal state.  

  Objects can be manipulated, changing their state.  They can be
  created, changed, and destroyed.  Creation and destruction are in
  fact merely variations or place holders on change (beginning and
  end of change).

  Player's via their proxy objects can manipulate objects.

  Other non-player connected objects can manipulate objects.

  Player-derived changes are not technically limited to those
  objects not representing players (SAY and TELL are forms of
  manipulation as are GIVE, KILL, SUMMON, HUG, PUSH and STEAL), but
  may attempt to be by world or game design considerations

This is of course the classic, "Its all 1's and 0's, don't get take it
so personally," argument.  It argues that mass PK's and the like are
merely bit shuffles with no notable effects outside of the contents of 
system memory.  

There are like arguments IRL: Genocide matters little in the grand
scheme of things.  The universe will neither care or notice.  Distant
galaxies will actually be entirely unaffected for the rest of eternity
whether or not humanity extinguishes itself in nuclear fire or plague
in the next fifteen minutes, or not.  The bit it ignores of course is
interpretation.  I agree that the M59 galaxy will likely never care or
be affected by whether the Hutu's are exterminated or not.  However I
and others prefer and attach emotive significance to that decision and
its results.  Ditto for the destruction of the rainforests and other
points.

And there we have the crux of, "To PK or not to PK," or mechanics
versus interpretation.

How much value and acknowledgment do we give to the emotive
significances? ("safe" versus laissez faire) How much value and
acknowledgement do we give to the above diagrammed mechanical
structure as versus the interpreted content?  (concensual versus power
politics) Which is more important, the mechanical structure or the
emotive interpretation?

<<Please, no comments on inference above on the artificial and ugly
definition of non-mechanicsl structures are "emotional" and thereby
inferred as non-rational etc.  Such definition is not attempted or
preferred, the terms are merely used to tag assumed dichotomies.>>

Is the the position a player occupies on this scale really the
definition of the RP/GoP/Social/etc types?  What is the *value* of
interpretation?

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