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

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  5 Aug 98, s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:
> 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'.

Exactly.  The effects of this claim on a player whose expectations 
are one of safeness and protection lead to claims of victimhood, 
unfairness and/or injustice.  This may even have legal repercussions 
as was alluded to in another thread (Dr. Cat & JCL).   I hope not. 

There are many muds which attempt to allow PK/non-PK environments to 
coexist through various mechanisms. (ie flagging, restrictions etc.)  
I have yet to see a mud (that did this) where two separate and 
very discordant societies did not develop.  Personally, I don't find 
this to be a desireable environment.  I wonder how much of this is 
motivated by the getting the "most players" issue?  Does this reflect 
a weak or compromised vision by an implementor(s)?  

> [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?
> 

Basically, yes.  Although I had to go and get all longwinded about 
it.  There's something to be said for brevity.  Thanks.  ;)

 
--
--/*\ 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   /*\--