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

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  3 Aug 98, J C Lawrence wrote:
> 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:
> 
[snipped  some predicates of the argument]

I would call this view the scientific approach.  It is a system's 
operational description.  That is it places no moral or ethical value 
statements on any actions.  It merely describes behavior.  Now if 
only psychology could stick to such systemic models instead of 
placing implicit or explicit value statements on behavior, it might 
qualify as science.  :P

>   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

These player-player interactions in a real world are always 
accompanied by moral assignations of "value".  Even in a sterile and 
closed experiment involving a fictional society made up wholly of 
psychopathic or sociopathic objects, a "value" is still assigned to 
an action. 

> 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.

Right.  But I daresay you will find few "true" believers in such 
theories.  Ask anyone who claims to believe such things to commit 
suicide.  If there is any resistence to this notion, then one is 
logically forced to admit that they have made an assignation of value 
to the action .  Whether the M59 galaxy is an object that cares or 
exerts will in any way comparable to a human object is an interesting 
notion that has implications on both objects. ;)

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

No one can deny that in a multiplayer game there is interaction 
between humans.  I like to think of such interaction as "speech".  
That is no physical contact occurs between participants.  Are there 
codes of ethics and/or morality associated with actions limited to 
speech?  Yes.  In addition, a game's rules may suspend value 
judgements associated with the use of speech or may provide 
additional moral restrictions on certain types of speech.  For 
instance in Trivial pursuit, there is an implicit rule that another 
player may not shout out answers to another players questions, 
against giving hints or reading the question in a misleading 
manner.  In order for one to play this game a particpiant must agree 
to abide by the games rules.  The rules place value on certain 
actions involving speech.  A much closer example is PBM or E-Mail 
Diplomacy.  In this game participants agree to subject themselves to 
rather odd rules regarding speech.  Backstabbing and prevarication 
are fair game.  Very few players take such matters personally.  A 
well executed diplomatic lie is often viewed with much admiration.  
In addition "multi-charing" and communications outside the game are 
viewed with disdain and punishable with the mud equivalent of 
banning.  Playing a game where your brother and cousin are playing 
countries in coordination is also considered cheating.  Enforcement 
of such activity is as haphazard as your traditional mud considering 
network anonymity, email forging, etc.  and is done in much the same 
way by game moderators and the judge server owner.  OTOH, forging 
Email in-game to appear to come from another player is well within 
the rules. :)

In summary, I dont' believe it's all 1's and 0's is a valid or 
rational position since the game involves human interaction.  However 
it may be valid to say "In this game, we are suspending any and all 
moral valuations on any activities which occur during this game".  
Quake might be a fair example of such a game.  I think it's fair to 
assume that such rules are pretty much implicit to playing the game.  
It's also possible that one might not personally like other players 
in the game and might seek every opportunity to humilate certain 
people on a regular basis.  I don't wish to debate whether one 
playing with such a view is healthy or not.  Any player is free to 
withdrawal from any game for any reason.

> 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?
>

I would suggest that most all games place a value on certain actions. 
Such valuations may or may not coincide with the valuations placed 
on comparable actions in the real world.  Yes, I said most.  Even in 
mud games where most all of the rules regarding RL morals, civility 
and ethics are suspended, there are usually some rules which are 
enforced merely to hold players.  I don't know many free-for-all 
games that hold players for long if it is well known that admins and 
their personal friends roam about with invincible characters randomly 
killing anyone who logs in.  Game players will always bring a very 
basic (e)valuation to any game.  If the game is fixed and/or known to 
be unwinnable and without enjoyment it is not a desirable game to 
play.  It may not even qualify as a game at all.  Sort of like 
"Calvin-ball", if anyone gets the reference. ;)

My basic point is this.

If a mud allows unrestricted and nonconsential PvP interaction, then 
anyone who participates in such a game does so voluntarily and 
willingly.  There can be no "victims" in such a game, either 
emotionally or physically.  

Now there certainly are games that I can imagination which very few 
people will even entertain because they find them personally and 
morally offensive.  And extending that offense to IRL sanctions 
towards the participants of such games is valid.  Note the strong 
response in the earlier threads in reference to mud rape.  So a 
strong moral stance against games which involve killing which 
extended to IRL feelings towards those who enjoy or participate in 
them is certainly a valid position.  No?   I personally know people 
who will not participate in any game involving any references to 
magic or demons.  If one wishes to poo poo this as a silly notion 
that's fine (I don't in fact agree with such a position), yet I will 
defend it to be as sound as those who have strong moral reservations 
about other types of activities in a game.

Which brings me back to my original point.  If one participates 
frequently in games which allow killing, how can one rational 
consider RL emotional effects of being a "victim" should such action 
occur to themself while participating in such a game?  And if so why 
the heck would one voluntarily participate in any such game.  In 
other words, one holds the viewpoint that their virtual game piece is 
a personal avatar of themself.  Actions which affect that avatar are 
viewed equivalently with RL actions (PK ~= harassment).  They are 
participating in a game in which they have expectations which are not 
reflective of the game rules nor ther players expectations.  I think 
it's incumbent upon the administrators of a such a game to be upfront 
and define their own expectations and assumptions of their playerbase 
as clearly as possible.

--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--