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

[Mike Sellers]

At 07:57 PM 1/5/98 PST8PDT, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
>>At 08:57 AM 12/22/97 PST8PDT, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>>Sorry, didn't mean to pick on specific language issues.  I think I
>>understand what you mean about intrusive, overbearing, "Big Brother"
>>situations.  Still, I don't think this necessarily applies to logging
>>communications on a MUD. =20
>
>It doesn't apply if you don't log or monitor etc.
>
>>I would add too that I support the use of "private areas" like individual
>>homes, etc., where no logging would be done.  At the same time, no support
>>would be given for user-logs made supporting accusations of harassment or
>>other actions taking place in such private areas.  Private areas are just
>>that: private. =20
>
>Well, the trouble is.  If I don't see anyone when I am in the woods,
>then I think "this is a private area", let's masturbate...  If you get
>the picture.

No, I really don't see the problem.  For example, if you want to have a
private conversation, go to where you _know_ things are private (likely
because you control that space and have designated it as such).  OTOH, say
you meet someone in the woods.  You decide to engage in cybersex.  At
first, you feel secure in this because you are confident that the admins
neither read nor expose logs for prurient interest.  Then, things turn
ugly, and the other person starts threatening you -- first your character,
and then *real* threats against *you*, where you live, etc.  All of a
sudden you're glad for the logs, because you can contact the admins about
this and they will be able to uncontrovertably see what your assailant said.=
 =20

The problem I see is that you're misapplying principles of privacy that
*do* make sense in the physical world to a world which necessarily operates
by different rules.  The online/mud experience is very real in
psychological terms, in terms of the relationships we make there.  However,
online worlds are *NOT* real in that they do not exist on their own; they
can only be brought into existence by human action.  It is unwise to expect
or set up the expectation in our users that the online world will operate
as the real world does in many respects.  People (in most countries anyway)
have the *right* to expect due process before the law, a right to freedom
of expression, etc..  Some of these rights are necessarily curtailed in
certain situations -- Disneyland *will* quietly boot you out if you are
obnoxious to other guests, and you have no right of due process in terms of
Disney's "governance" of their "land."  In the same way, you may have
certain civil expectations *as defined when you enter a game/world*, but it
is naive to think that these can or will match what goes on in the rest of
the world. =20

>>>The main thing is, being logged is unpleasant.  If people monitor you,
>>>it means they don't trust you, that they are going to use that
>>>information to your disadvantage. That isn't freedom.  Freedom is what
>>>MUDs are about?
>
>>Last I checked, MUDs were about entertainment. =20
>
>The only unique thing virtual worlds can provide is freedom to carve
>your own society.  Entertainment, what is that?  Wasting time?

Call it wasting time if you want; such a definition is largely irrelevant.
I agree that people *will* create societies online, simply because that is
something which we as humans do.  However, the principles by which these
societies operate are not the same as those by which any other society
known operates: an easy example is that physical proximity is for the first
time an utter non-issue.  From this simple change come many others,
including the fact that, for now at least, our virtual representations do
not and cannot have the same expectation of inalienable rights that our
*real* selves do.  You can argue otherwise all you want, but that doesn't
make your arguments tenable in anything that passes for reality. =20

> ...The main point is still,
>computer systems are giving users some false idea that they are alone
>and "safe".=20

This is one reason why informing people of continuous logging is important.

>
>>doing something hurtful to someone else.  If they are falsely accused, no
>>problem -- the log helps them out, and no suspicion lingers as it might
>>otherwise.  If they are rightly accused, then we have the ability to=
 better
>
>Guilty unless logged? That's pretty horrible. =20

No, that's not it at all.  Don't let your emotions exaggerate this.  Look
at this way.  In the real world, you are *continuously* logged in many ways
of which you are not aware.  You can be tracked by your transactions
(unless you *solely* use cash), by your car and other licenses, by your
telephone calls (not recorded, just the records that you made them),
fingerprints, hairs, rug and other fibers on your clothes, etc.  My point
is that, if you are accused of a crime, a large part of any investigation
is "checking the logs" -- that is, checking the forensic evidence to see if
you might have been the person who committed the crime.

BUT:  In an online world, we have no fingerprints, hairs, cloth fibers,
etc.  There is *NO* forensic evidence, unless we make it ourselves.  The
easiest and best "evidence" like this is to log events and statements as
the occur, in case they're needed later. =20

All of your concerns, it seems to me, stem from the possibility of abuse
and resulting embarrassment.  That's not an insignificant concern, but I
believe we have already described adequate safeguards on any logging
system: inform the users up front, provide private spaces, log access to
the logs by admins, and hold admins to a professional standard of ethics
and discretion when dealing with people and their logs -- any misuse can
result in termination of employment. =20

>Anyway. Think about
>this.  Your MUD is research with human testobjects, do whatever you
>want as long as it follows guidelines for such research.

In the first place, I am not at all sure I agree with your assertion that
we are doing anything like human testing!  (That's a *big* leap on your
part!)  However, I know the ethical guidelines for dealing with human test
subjects at least as well as you do, I'm sure.  If you want to frame the
issue this way, that's fine: so long as we inform the users that they are
being logged (as everyone has said), keep the logs confidential, and
perhaps give them the opportunity (at least once) to view their own logs,
we are well within accepted guidelines for such research.  I certainly
don't know of any human research that *doesn't* log (sometimes invasively)
every aspect of the subject's behavior. =20


>>>The problem is, the difference isn't as clear. The MUD administration
>>>is a government.  If you don't like how we handle things, move to a
>>>different state :-). =20
>>
>>But a MUD can't put *you* in jail, curtail your freedoms, deny you=
 housing,
>>etc.  If you don't like the way the MUD is run, you *can* move to another
>>one quite easily.  Logging out of a MUD is hardly the same as checking out
>>of this (the physical) world. =20
>
>It isn't the same... yet. =20

Right.  Call me when we all live in Star Trek-style holodecks, complete
with jails in which we might actually languish.  Until then, I'm not going
to worry _too_ much about muds being mistaken for actual governments. =20

>>If the difference between a MUD and an actual, physical world government
>>(and the relative powers of each) isn't clear to you... I think you have
>>other problems. =20
>
>Yeah, the trouble is that I am on a mailinglist with admins that are
>designing systems to fit their own bill... I am concerned about the
>individual, the user, good design, moral, philosphy etc.

Are you implying that you are the lone keeper of such high-minded ideals,
surrounded by the squalor of egotistical or megalomaniacal admins?  I hope
you're not really that foolish.


--

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

"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others=20
may despise it, is the invention of good games.  And it cannot be done=20
by men out of touch with their instinctive values."  - Carl Jung