[MUD-Dev] Administrative Responsibilities

[Mike Sellers]

At 02:45 AM 2/2/98 PST8PDT, Greg Munt wrote:
>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. 

Are you sure?  I think you assume a degree of social and moral refinement,
not to mention maturity, that is unwarranted.  All admins may have *some*
sense of social conscience and morality, but that in no way ensures that
theirs is at all developed, that they understand and listen to their
internal compass, or that their sense of these things agrees with yours in
the smallest degree.  Sadly, I am speaking from all-too direct experience.  

>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. 

How do you mean "outlaw"?  You mean using real-world law, or somehow
standardizing all internal mud laws?  Either way, your option appears
ludicrously draconian.  And as for dealing with aggressors in a
predetermined manner, how do you propose to do this?  You cannot enumerage
all of the various possibilities and nuances that go on between aggressor
and victim, even assuming you can identify two such parties (often you
can't).  

>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. 

And what if you're running a MUD that is trying to recreate a society
similar to an ancient Klingon, Kurgish, or Kzinish society?  Maybe the
admins *want* their mud (or even just parts of it) to be truly merciless,
not just mock-merciless.  That's their choice -- they run the MUD.  If you
don't like it, don't go there.  

There's an old saying in the US, "freedom of the press belongs to him what
has one."  I think there's a similar idea here: you cannot control what you
do not own, and you do not own the muds you are on as a player.  

>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." 

This sounds like HobbitonMUD to me.  Or maybe SmurfMUD.  I agree that
rampant aggression should not be encouraged or enabled in any MUD I would
want to play on.  OTOH, I do not favor eliminating PK or using any other
heavy-handed, draconian, even parental measures to achieve this end.  The
top-down method of ensuring societal harmony does not work (except maybe in
Singapore, where there is the small matter of real-world personal freedoms
and privacy to consider); it has to be built into the world and arise from
the bottom up.

--

Mike Sellers   Chief Alchemist -- Online Alchemy   mike at online-alchemy.com

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others 
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done 
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung