[MUD-Dev] Administrative Responsibilities

[Jon A. Lambert]

On  2 Feb 98 at 2:45, Greg Munt wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 1998, Chris Gray wrote:
> > Different people have different interests. Someone capable of programming
> > a MUD server, and of putting together a scenario, may have the social
> > skills of a wolverine. If the accepted answer to your question is 'yes',
> > then that person cannot do anything with the system they have created,
> > other than perhaps give it to someone else. In the free and open world
> > of the non-work-time internet, I don't believe that is acceptable. You
> > *want* social responsibility on the part of someone who has the technical
> > skills and opportunity to host a MUD, but I don't think you can *demand*
> > it. Doing so puts you in the same position as your harassers - putting
> > your own desires ahead of those of others.
> 
> You suggest that to comply with my demands (yes, they *are* demands - 
> explained later) an administrator must decide between not opening the 
> mud, or giving it to someone else.
> 
> I do not agree that these are the only options. Even the geekiest of
> coders has a social conscience, and a sense of morality. The
> legitimisation of harassment and victimisation is immoral. It also has a
> huge potential to damage the society. My solution: outlaw such activities.
> Deal with aggressors in a predetermined manner. If the administrator is
> incapable of dealing with social problems, they should delegate their
> responsibilities. 
> 
> My opinion: these responsibilities are part of being an administrator. To
> lose the responsibilities, you must lose the administrative position. 
> Delegation does not mean discarding them, it means assigning the work 
> required to meet them, to a subordinate.
> 
> You also say that I cannot demand that administrators assume these 
> responsibilities. Again, I disagree. Demanding that administrators act 
> responsibly is not putting my desires ahead of those of others; for, 
> attempting to prevent harassment and victimisation benefits the society 
> that has developed within the mud. It benefits every member of that 
> society. A 'safe' society such as this increases the happiness factor of 
> its members. This can only make the mud more successful, assuming that 
> you consider success and popularity as synonymous. If you don't then I 
> assume that you at least want any potential user of the mud to enjoy 
> themselves? 
> 
> A 'safe' society aids in satisfying this goal: "We aim to encourage all
> users to have as much fun as they can, providing that this fun does not
> detrimentally affect that of others." 

First to paraphrase Bartle:

"Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others....The more
massive the distress caused, the greater the killer's joy at having caused
it. Normal points-scoring is usually required so as to become powerful
enough to begin causing havoc in earnest, and exploration of a kind is
necessary to discover new and ingenious ways to kill people. Even
socialising is sometimes worthwhile beyond taunting a recent victim, for
example in finding out someone's playing habits, or discussing tactics with
fellow killers. They're all just means to an end, though; only in the
knowledge that a real person, somewhere, is very upset by what you've just
done, yet can themselves do nothing about it, is there any true
adrenalin-shooting, juicy fun." 

The Circle you logged into was obviously strong in clubs.  You seem to
suggest that it is immoral and irresponsible to run a game that caters to 
this class of mudder.  While my personal druthers are not along this line,
I really don't give a whistle about how a "club" admin runs their game
and don't attach any special morality to this type of GAME.  And to a
Club mudder, this IS definately a game. I don't think you'll find many fans 
of this genre who is under any illusion that it is otherwise.  It's as
close as you get to Quake in the text world.  Usually anything goes.
The more absent admin influence, the better the game.  No special social 
skills are required of these admins.  

Quite a ways back, you posted on how you wanted to design a balanced game 
to cater to all 4 of Bartle's cards.  You current design is to be strongly
social (hearts).  That's fine.  You don't wish to cater to clubs.  What you 
are talking about here is an attempt to impose your design decisions on 
other mud genres.  To a player whose preferences are strong in hearts, the 
mud is much more than a game, its more personal.  Actually, we've done this 
discussion to death before in the PK vs. non-PK coexistence threads.  If 
the mud is viewed wholly as a game then "harrasment", "abuse" and 
"morality" are non-existent concepts, as everything is in-game.  

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