[MUD-Dev] Re: Marion's Tailor Problem

[Marian Griffith]

On Sun 06 Sep, J C Lawrence wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:20:23 -0700 (PDT) 
> Adam Wiggins<adam at angel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 s001gmu at nova.wright.edu wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote: 

> >>> Why is disallowing PKill or PSteal an unsatisfactory solution to
> >>> this scenario?  Why is only allowing "consential" PKill or PSteal
> >>> an unsatisfactory solution to this scenario?

> >> The problem with disallowing PKill/PSteal is that a lot of people
> >> on here are advocates of a more 'pure' simulation type game.  

> > And as I always mention whenever this discussion pops up, we're
> > talking about a *whole* lot more than just "PKill/PSteal".  

Yes. PK is only one form of how players can disrupt the game for others.
It is perhaps the most spectacular and emotionally abusive but making it
impossible to attack other players (consensual or otherwise)  is not go-
int to solve the whole problem.

> Some idle thoughts which don't really resolve the Tailor Scenario, but walk
> about the outskirts:

I would like to emphasise one point, which constantly tends to get over-
shadowed by the PK/noPK debate. The tailor scenario was not about player
killing as such.  The question that needs to be answered, in my opinion,
is: who is responsible for keeping disruptions of the gameplay to an ac-
ceptable minimum. The victim? Vigilantes? Player militias? The game? The
administration?
The most common approach is that it is the victim herself who is respon-
sible.  Most of the PK debate here focusses on that as well, or it tries
to find ways to minimise the damage done by PK  (but ignores the emotio-
nal damage which is in many ways more severe).
I wrote about the tailor because I wanted to show that  the idea that it
is up to the victim to protect herself is in itself wrong. The victim is
not interested  nor capable to do so,  unless she is willing to play the
same game as the attacker;  which obviously she does not or she would be
doing it from the start.

>   How about having XXX be near-zero?  Pacifist players who are
> slaughtered by other players lose nothing, merely having their
> characters reset to a new location and their EQ handled (however).

It does not deal with the emotional abuse that is inherent in an attack.
Some players may handle it better than others, but having your character
attacked and killed by another players is never neutral.

It really is a social problem  more than a technical one.  I agree with
Dr. Cat that the solution must be social more than anything else.


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