[MUD-Dev] Wild west (was Guilds & Politics)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Travis S. Casey" <efindel at io.com> wrote:
>IMHO, the situation is analogous to a store that uses security cameras
>and records them -- if you don't like the idea that complete strangers
>might see you scratching yourself or picking your nose, simply don't
>shop there.

Not quite.  You spend a limited amount of time in a store, and I bet
you don't fuck there. (Although I know someone that does...) The key
issue is that a mud is a communication system (but not only a
communication system).

>If you don't want strangers to see your private parts, don't join a
>nudist's club.  If you don't want people to try to beat you up, don't
>join an amateur boxer's association.  If you don't want people to send 
>you music you don't want and then expect you to pay for it, don't join
>a record club.

Not really comparable to logging.  These are all examples of
functionality you seek.  I don't think users "seek" logging.

>All of these are things that are illegal (in most countries, at least)
>when done to you without your consent -- just as recording what someone
>does and says is.  However, if you join an organization knowing that
>these things will be done to you by it, you have, by implication, 
>consented to have them done to you. 

Nope.  What makes you think I have consented to anything?

This is a onesided agreement.  Shrinkwrapped "agreements" does not
have a legal impact in my country.  Neither does certain unreasonable
contracts (even if you sign them).  Anyway, it is not enough only to
tell the user, the user must understand the message, understand the
implications and remember them throughout the session.

Btw, I never read shrinkwrapped licences.  I doubt that most users do.

>don't consent.  Of course, if they don't consent, you can simply not
>give them a character and log them off.  This is the same basic 
>approach used by AOL and many other service providers that either
>log information or do random monitoring, and it might save you from
>legal hassles in the long run.

Maybe.  I am not particularly interested in the legal side, although
legal problems suggests that you have crossed a border and entered an
unsafe "zone".  Contracts doesn't neccessarily overrun laws though.
Even if you tell you can always get into trouble: "You have not done
enough to inform and protect the customer".  The very fact that a user
might consider having a lawyer look at the legal side of the system
suggests that there is a problem with the design.

>A thought I have yet to see anybody raise about the logging/"time 
>travel" scenario:  muds are, among other things, virtual worlds in which
>we can see how people might interact under different sets of laws than
>those which prevail in reality.  This mud is creating a world in which
>postcognition, possibly even remote postcognition, is possible.  In such
>a world, there is no assurance of perfect privacy.  *There is no other way
>in which such a world can be modeled except through logging of the type
>described.*

I don't agree.  You can very well implement a system that protects the
individual.  Besides, are all designs good designs (seems to be your
assumption here)?  Why would you do it?  Research?  Research using
human subjects is a mine field. :/

>  It would be interesting to see how people would act if they
>knew that all their actions were subject to review -- and how better to
>simulate such an environment than to actually implement it?

Well, I don't think a simulated environment will ever tell us much
about our physical environment, if that is what you are suggesting.
Even laboratory results seem to break down in the Real world, there
are simply too many factors involved in such a complex environment. I
think it works a whole lot better the other way.  That is, we may be
able to infere something about behaviour in a MUD based on knowledge
from the Real World.

Maybe I misinterpreted you here...

Ola.