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

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

[snip]

> 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.  

The key to this approach is the implicit understanding of the player that
the game 'allows unrestricted and nonconsential PvP interaction'.  If a
game is purported to be safe, but actually allows pk, etc, then there
certainly are victims.  Not victims of pk, but victims of the original
lie, that the system is 'safe'.

[snip]
 
> 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.

Which means, if I understand correctly, that you are saying 'the admin
should make it clear what the rules of the game are, before anyone plays,
and if there is a misunderstanding and someone get's torqued off, well,
too bad, you read the rules and agreed.'  Right?

-Greg