[MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method

[Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt]

On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> On 13 Jul 98, Dr. Cat wrote:
>
> <snip inclusion on free speech and harassment>
> 
> I think this is a quite reasonable and supportable position.  Assume 
> (demand?), cajole or otherwise instruct players in "common sense" 
> social mechanisms (or what used to be) that many of us learned in 
> grammar school.  I'd give you a "I remember when..." speech but I'd 
> just as soon pass on it, rather than embarass myself recalling false, 
> fractured perceptions of an earlier "gentler" time.   
> 
> But that DO you consider grounds for administrative interference on 
> Furcadia?   Where does free-speech end, and harassment/game 
> disruption begin?
> 
> Would Bubba the Illinois Nazi be tolerated by your wizards?
> Would Bubba the undeterred groper be subject to intervention?
> What about Bubba of the foul mouth?  Is there a list of forbidden 
> incantations?  
> What about Bubba the gay activist recruitment officer? 
> What about Bubba the vocal gay hater, black hater, or hermaphroditic 
> dwarf hater?
> What about arthropods and reptiles who use provocative anti-fur 
> language?   Are PETA activists tolerated on Furcada? ;)


If you have a broad enough player base, you can also take 
'administrative interference' to the people by letting them elect a 
council of players that are given some of the administrative
tools to 'punish' a player:

    Loss of status (game oriented or roleplayed), 
    Loss of speech or other privileges for a period of time, or permanent.
     (maybe even blinding for a time)
    Banning a player for a period of time, or permanent.
     (maybe even have a jail)
    Banning the host(s) by which the player connects.
    (...fill in more good ideas here)

The idea is that the council could pass judgement as they saw fit,
even reversing old judgements. If a council did a bad job, they'd 
probably not be reelected. If you want a hand in the process, you
could state that 'one from the admin' should be a fixed part of
the council.

So, if the current council didn't want PETA activists (as an example), 
they'd ban their characters, or decree rules that prohibited them from 
speaking their mind, punishing them if they found that they broke the 
rules.

Two things the admin would have to do:

  1: ensure that the election is not tampered with, that is that 
     every person have only one vote (not logging in with 1000 
     players and voting for yourself).

  2: ensure that the council does not use its power simply
     to ensure its own reelection (deleting all the players
     that does not agree with them)

Of cause (2) is tricky, but much less tricky than being personally
involved in every kind of dispute. Does anyone have had some kind
of experience with that sort of setup?


Hans Henrik Staerfeldt        |  phone-mail: 40383492 at sms.tdm.dk      
email: bombman at diku.dk        |  voice: +45 40383492               
  hhs at cbs.dtu.dk              |  snail-mail:
WWW-home                      |       Hans Henrik Staerfeldt,
  http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/hhs/  |       Dybendalsvej 74 2. th,
                              |       2720 Vanloese, Danmark.
                              |
Student of Computer Science   | Scientific programmer at Center for
and Information Psychology.   |   Biological Sequence Analysis,
at University of Copenhagen   |   Technical University of Denmark.