[MUD-Dev] Administrative Responsibilities

[Greg Munt]

On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> On  2 Feb 98 at 2:45, Greg Munt wrote:
>  
> > 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:
> 
> [Snip]
> 
> 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.  

Actually, my current design is only part of the *intended*, final design. 
One step at a time. Evolutionary development means starting small and 
basic, and ending large and complex.

> What you 
> are talking about here is an attempt to impose your design decisions on 
> other mud genres.  

No - see below.

> 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.  

Some points of clarification:

  This mud outlawed playerkilling, although it was allowed by the server. 
  Playerkillers were marked '(KILLER)' after their entry in the who 
  listing, and were considered 'fair game' to anyone. Killers of 
  playerkillers were not marked in the who list.

  The mud's 'gossip' channel was frequently filled with discussions 
  concerning the real life of players, and I was well-known for engaging in 
  political discussions when online. I agree that in PK muds, everything 
  is fair game, including harassment and victimisation. This is ok, because 
  all players know the score before they start playing. Going by the use 
  of the 'gossip' channel, I would not assume that everything was in-game.

  The activities which I considered to be harassment and victimisation 
  were NOT in-game activities. I had inadvertedly offended a female player. 
  Her male friends sought to protect her, and 'punish' me for a crime that 
  I was unaware of committing. They were not pursuing in-game PK fun, but 
  instead were dealing out 'justice' to someone who had offended one of 
  their number IN REAL LIFE.
  
If we were discussing a PK mud, I would agree with you. If my treatment 
was in-game, I would agree with you. I have played a mud where I was 
killed in the game context. I had no problem with that. But when I am 
killed (or rather, overkilled) for OOC reasons, that is when I take offence, 
to put it rather mildly.

--
Greg Munt, greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk   "I'm not bitter - just twisted."
http://www.uni-corn.demon.co.uk/ubiquity/