[MUD-Dev] Re: CGDC, a summary

[s001gmu at nova.wright.edu]

Message reformatted for 80 cols.  :)

On Thu, 21 May 1998, Koster, Raph wrote:

> On Thursday, May 21, 1998 12:33 AM s001gmu at nova.wright.edu
> [SMTP:s001gmu at nova.wright.edu] said:
> 
> > On Mon, 18 May 1998, John Bertoglio wrote:
> > > From: Koster, Raph <rkoster at origin.ea.com>
> > > >I think in terms of three things when considering measures against
> > > >the PKs in a game: who determines who is a bad guy; who catches the
> > > >bad guy;  who punishes the bad guy. In an ideal (virtual) world, I
> > > >wish the answer were "the players" to all three. But I am settling
> > > >for "the players" for the first two. To my mind, a playerkilling
> > > >toggle model puts none of the burden on the players at all, and
> > > >that's a bad route to go down admin-wise.
> > > 
> > > It looks to me like the server flags #1 and the players take care of
> > > #2 and #3.
> 
> Actually, I look at it this way: the server detects something that may
> be a "bad act." But the choice to flag the baddie is actually the
> players'. Thus putting that burden on them. Then the server helps out by
> remembering the people who have been flagged, and publicly displaying
> it. But again, it takes no action to apprehend the person--that must be
> done by a player too, when they kill him. Then the server obligingly
> slaps penalties on the character, since it is difficult for players to
> do so in any meaningful way. So, #1 player, #2 player, #3 server.
 
[...]

> > > Which is proper since only the server can make an impartial
> > > ajudication of events. Allowing players to control #1 puts to much 
> > > power in the hands of cliques. No doubt, lynching would become a
> > > common practice.
> > 
> > And this is a Bad Thing(tm)?
> > 
> > -Greg
> 
> It can be, if the players can just flag anyone the heck they want. As a
> rule after all, bad guys tend to be more organized. They'd concoct a
> smear campaign and splatter someone nice just for the hell of it. Hence
> the initial prerequisite in UO's new system of a particular sort of
> action being committed.

Aye, and I can see some interesting lynchings occuring where someone
commits an act by accident, and things get all blown out of proportion.
As long as everyone keeps in mind that the lynching is in-game, and a
result of in-game actions, etc, it could be cool.  :)  Granted, there are
several If's in there that I would be leary of, given several previous
conversations on the way ppl interpret 'virtual' experiences, and mine own
experience on both sides of the issue.

It should be interesting to see how it works out.  :)

-Greg



--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.