[MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics [was Affecting the World]

[JC Lawrence]

On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 17:19:57 PST8PDT 
stad <Ola> wrote:

> JC Lawrence <claw at under.Eng.Sun.COM> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 1997 19:08:07 +0100 (MET) Ola wrote:

>>>> The admin is tha ultimate authority, should know that...

>>> [Not?] neccessarily. Look at IRC.

>> Nahh, that's where the aspect of consent mentioned above comes in.

> world vs segment (channel on irc) system owner vs player
> Quite a big difference.

Nope.  The channel ops are the owners of their channels, such (until
they get kicked off by any of the standard robot attacks), but they
are also there by the sufferance and consent of the server owner.

>>>> However, the main point which I am countering is the assertion
>>>> that the users of the MUD world have some sort of divine
>>>> ownership and right to their creations and effects in the MUD
>>>> world.  While I know that some admins would encourage such a
>>>> view, I think it is essentially delusionary.  The users in a MUD
>>>> are there on the admin's sufference.  Quite literally he allows
>>>> them to be there, and to do whatever they do.  If he did not
>>>> allow them, they would not be there.

>>> Depends.  Some MUDs are run by organizations.  The admin is
>>> replacable. Hence the janitor.

>>  No, this doesn't affect anything I said.  The roles are still the
>> same.  The power and the responsibility is not tied to the human
>> individual, it is tied to whoever holds that position.

> It does affect what you said.

> Owner = designer = programmer = janitor = JCL.  Implies total
> control.  

Agreed.

> Implies blurred roles.  

False.  The ability for blurring is just as present as when the roles
are embodied in seperate individuals.  A person amy "collude" or
"conspire" with others almost as easily as he may with others.
Consider the standard bitch sessions which go on in most companies
break rooms over coffee.  In its more innocuous form:

  "Yeah, that XXX player is a real arsehole, he..."

  "Yeah, he's been giving me a hard time too, nagging on and on..."

  "Hey, don't worry you two, I'll fix him tonight.  A little creative
editing of his character code and he won't know what hit him..."

> There is nobody to keep the
> janitor in place.

Of course not.  That is the definition of ownership.  Whoever the
ultimate owner is by definition is unrestrained in his owner
behaviours.

> If the owner is an user owned (and run) organization...

I won't bother argueing againt the idiocies of democracy.  However
this doesn't change the equation.  The owner is now merely a
collective which has embodied its ownership responsibilities and
rights in to one individual selected by rather baroque means.  The
resultant para-owner is just as much a "real" owner as any other
admin.  The only difference is that he does not control his tenure on
his ownership and the "natural" owner does.

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
                                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
----------(*)                        Internet: jc.lawrence at sun.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...