[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun

[Marian Griffith]

On Tue 21 Jul, Travis Casey wrote:

Also a reply to Matthew R. Sheahan, who pointed out the same thing.

> On 21 July 1998, Marian Griffith wrote:

> > Violence does not equate physical violence. It is the exertion of
> > power over somebody else.

> Normally I don't get involved in this kind of debate, but I have to
> say that this definition of violence is *far* too broad.

> I don't think that most reasonable person would classify these as
> violent acts.

I am sorry. I was careless when I wrote that. However I hope everybody
understood that I never meant the 'definition' to be that broad.

> I'd propose this definition:

>   Any action which stands a serious risk of harming someone else is
>   violence.

> Note that harm does not have to be physical -- one can harm someone
> psychologically, socially, economically, or possibly in other ways.

Which really was the point I was trying to make. I just need to learn
to think before I write.

> Note further that no value judgement is implied here:  some acts of
> violence may, in fact, be good.  (For example, if I run headlong into
> someone at full force, I stand a serious risk of harming them.
> However, if I do this in an attempt to keep that person from being run
> over by a bus, most people would count that as good.)

> It should also be noted that violence may be unintentional -- the
> person performing the violence may not realize or understand that
> there is a potential for harm.

I am having some trouble with this. For me there is a certain intention
to harm somebody else before you can call it violence.  But that may be
my personal opinion.

[further explanations snipped]

> With that said, I think the biggest disagreement among mudders is not
> about whether violence is bad, but about what is a violent act.  Some
> believe that if you are acting in character, and only doing things to
> someone else's character, there should be no serious potential for
> harm -- that everyone in the mud should realize/believe that it's just
> a game, and the characters are just playing pieces.

> For another contingent, their characters are more than playing pieces
> -- they are representatives of themselves in a virtual world.  From
> that point of view, an attempt to harm a character is an attempt to
> harm the person playing that character, and is therefore violence.

This is indeed a key difference. The difference is in the intention, not
as much in the actual actions that are performed.

> Most of us, I think, are somewhere in the middle, believing that some
> actions are OK because "they just affect the characters" while others
> are not OK or are less OK because they carry the potential of harming
> the players.  However, there is still disagreement over "where the
> line should be drawn."

This actually is much the same debate as what is sexual harassment. Not
that I plan to get into -that- discussion -here-.

[lots snipped]

Never having played doom, nor likely to ever do,  I would agree that in
such games there is no violence against another player. But that is be-
cause it is the whole point of the game to attack other characters.  It
is also why I do not expect to enjoy such games.  However in muds there
is a much more blurred line  between violence against players and char-
acters. I belief that this issue must be solved one way or the other or
the games can not mature.  How this can be done  is not entirely clear,
although I believe that Dr.Cat is on the right track with the idea that
undesired behaviour  must be resolved through taking away attention ra-
ther than rewarding such behaviour.  There still remain a lot of issues
that must be solved of course.

Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey