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

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

Mike Sellers <mike at online-alchemy.com> wrote:
>At 07:57 PM 1/5/98 PST8PDT, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:

>>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

So, users should keep the idea "I am being logged" in their mind all
the time.  Moral aside, what about the human factors here? You are a
soft science guy! :-/

>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 sai=
d. =20

Actually I am not glad.  Imagine this: I am having a threatening guy
in my own wood.  I call the police after noticing this, then they
start logging.  The police does not require proofs to start an
investigation!

>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 problem is (moral aside), we are evolved for the physical world.
We transfer knowledge from the physical world (most of us are raised
there).  We infer. We make reasonable assumptions. We are very good at
it. Extremely.  Except, it doesn't work.

>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.

Oh yeah, but they are designed that way.

>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."

Well, if you and a lot of other people go there all the time, then I
guess it will be comparable...  Actually, the main point is: I hope
they don't place bugs on me when I enter.  Maybe the ticket is bugged?

(In certain areas you do have legal rights: sexism, racism etc)

>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

It certainly is naive. Humans are naive.  That's what makes us work in
this world that we have evolved and been trained in.  We are naive in
a probabilistic manner.

>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

Legal or moral (philosophical) rights?  If legal, I agree, but I never
said same.  The rights I am talking about are intelectual. You create
a communication system, you provide functionality for communication.
Note that I am more concerned about the moral rights, the design
issue, than legal ones.

>>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.

Well, I make a distinction between things that are stored in a
retrievable manner in a computersystem and those that are not.  Even
more so if it is searchable and browsable.  Even more so if it is
complete.  Anyway, the computersystem ones are controlled by laws and
ruled designed for each system, and you are not allowed to sell
information from them, not allowed to mix information from different
systems. Etc. (Applies to Norway)

>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.

Well, if you really have to do this. Why not allow people to choose
whether incoming info should be logged or not?  Then two people can
turn off logging and chat, if they are offended by eachother, well
that's their problem.  They turned off logging.

>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

Yes, yes, but I don't see a one-time "crime" as a problem.

>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

Hmm.. I think I have made a lot more arguments available.  I am not
going to repeat myself more than I have already done. This argument is
taking out my breath!!


>part!)  However, I know the ethical guidelines for dealing with human test
>subjects at least as well as you do, I'm sure.

Probably. (There are many... Some good, some...)

>  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

Actually, I think you would have to make sure that they _really_
understand the implications.  The right to know exactly what you try
to achieve. The right to view what is measured is a good point. Then
you have the point: if the experiment could result in trauma then it
should be really important to do what you do, the traumatic
possibility (even if it is highly unlikely) should be explained in
such a way that the test subject _really_ understand the implications.

Another point is that they should be paid :-) Then you have that part
about being treated anonymously (protecting your sources).

(They probably should be told about the time aspect as well...)

>>>>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 housi=
ng,
>>>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 o=
ut
>>>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

I don't worry about that, I worry about the implication of your statement.

You recommended "net gain" by Hagel/Armstrong.  You are in bad luck, I
received it today :^)

More fuel to the fire: They see VWorlds as some kind of
entertaiment/community/marketing mix.

Page 49 "Overview of the Dynamics of Increasing Returns"
(trying to capture the essentials of the figure)

Draw vendors to community
Attract members and promote spending [!]

Draw more members to the community
Generate memberbased content

Promote member-to-meber interaction
Build member loyalty to community

Gather information about members [!]
Target advertising and transaction offerings [!]


(I guess I shouldn't mention that I can "turn off" telemarketing on my
phone? (It does at least have a limiting effect) Norwegian laws.  Laws
have no impact JCL?)

I know they write that information should be owned by the users,
but...

Anyway, their model will probably work in the US. Is it a good idea?
Norman was consultant for what I would guess was a similar (probably
worse) scheme, only implemented as television, big bucks involved. He
didn't like it much. Actually in "Things that makes us smart" he makes
a distinction between what happens on the surface and what is not...

>>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.

But you haven't even started arguing from the individuals point of
view yet?  You argue from a system point of view.  Some argue from a
technical point of view. Some argue from a ownership point of
view. Etc.

Ola.