[MUD-Dev] Administrative Responsibilities

[Chris Gray]

[Greg Munt:]

Well, since you are responding specifically to my comments, I feel I
should respond in turn, but this will likely be the end of my contribution
to this - I'm simply not interested in this aspect of MUDs.

: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.

Not everyone agrees as to what is sufficient social consciousness. Not
everyone agrees on what immorality is. Not everyone will agree that
damage to society will result. It's your solution, fine. That doesn't
mean it is a solution that everyone accepts. Some people administer a
MUD by default - there is no-one to delegate to.

: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.

I won't try to define "administrator". My concern is more with the
people who provide the physical and technical resources to host a MUD.
It is those people who I don't necessarily believe should be forced to
attempt to define morality.

: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?

Perhaps I disagree that preventing what you consider to be "harassment"
and "victimization" is a benefit to society. Perhaps I don't agree that
a "safe" society is a good thing. For example, there is a move afoot
here in Alberta to make it illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck.
Such a rule is fairly common, but here in red-neck Alberta, we don't
have that rule. My opinion is to leave things as they are and let
"evolution" take care of the stupid. I gather you would disagree.

: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." 

>From what I've heard (I don't MUD enough to know firsthand), there are
lots of people out there who find it fun to harass and victimize. So, you
yourself are demanding that no MUD cater to that (hopefully) minority.

Summary: you *are* trying to push your morals onto others, and I for one
resent that quite strongly. This is for much the same reasons as I resent
people trying to tell me that the only reasonable way to program is
full object-oriented programming in C++. I simply disagree, strongly.

--
Chris Gray   cg at ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA