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

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, JC Lawrence wrote:
> 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.

And users of the channel are there on the sufferance of the channel ops,
more or less? This is extremely similar to the mud situation:

Mud players are there on the suffrance of the Mud Admin.
The Mud and its Admin are there on the suffrance of the machine-owner
(sometimes the same person).
 
> >>>> 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.

[Snip]

> > Owner = designer = programmer = janitor = JCL.  Implies total
> > control.  
> 
> Agreed.
 
This is also my position (although I am not the only person on the team).
Vaguely speaking it goes:

Owner -> Design team <-> Programming team <-> Janitorial team

Where the direction of the arrow implies how instructions may be passed -
I head all three teams, and exert a position as facist dictator in charge
of the entire operation. Note: while the facist analogy may seem amusing
and is satirical to a degree, the 'dictator' part is not. I make no
illusions to offering democracy in any way (this does not mean that I
ignore suggestions and comments that others have - merely that I reserve
total power).

> > 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:

I'd go as far as to say that you get more blurring when you have separate
individuals forming an administrative 'council' or so forth. This was
certainly the case when I operated B5 MUSH, which ran on a 'triumvirate'
system with me presiding as 'President' in some fashion, a 'Head Judge'
and a 'Head Admin'. We all stepped on each others feet, in each others
work and fell over each other, leading to regular and frequent arguments.

>   "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..."

Mwuah. I'm not that lenient :P
 
> > 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.

I agree here (might phrase it differently, but probably not). This is
something that I do make painfully clear to people prepared to discuss my
policies with me at length - I reserve all final rights to decisions, and
decide everything, essentially. I don't believe in democracy as a valid
concept in a mud context - been there, tried that, fell on my face. :)
 
> > 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.

Yup.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	ICQ: 5580107
"We can recode it; we have the technology."