[MUD-Dev] players who "take away from the game"

[Charles Hughes]

On Tuesday, November 09, 1999 9:49 PM, J C Lawrence [SMTP:claw at cp.net] 
wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:11:25 -0500
> Charles Hughes <charles.hughes at bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > 0) Any player who's intent is to disturb the normal (and proper)
> > functioning of the game.
>
> Who defines "normal" and "proper"?  On what metrics are they
> defined?

The admins/gods defined the metrics.  Finding a bug was okay, using
it was abuse. PKing as harassment was defined as abuse.

> atrociously high score.  I'd changed the goal.

The goal in the mud was to have fun with others NOT to have fun at
the expense of others. (This was not explicitly written down but was
stated by various gods at various times, and could be discerned from
the mud rules.)

> Where does this fit?  What about Dr Cat's Stamp Collecting Dillemma?
> The player want's to collect stamps and be generally uninvolved in
> combat.  Other players want to PK.  Without pre-defining the game as
> being either a stamp collecting game or a PK game, which is
> "proper"?

It's not the same. PKing in this instance was frowned upon - the
abusive players would only appear after spying to make sure there
were few players in the area and no admins online.

> > I have been subjected to two different disruptive player attacks:
> > a) one character who was a newbie went around trying to screw with
> > people's triggers (he managed to screw with mine which really
> > pissed me off when the gods decided that was okay to do).  b) one
> > or more characters who PK in a quite obviously non-PK area and
> > again the gods refused to intervene.
>
> Interestingly enough I would considr both the above actions quite
> acceptable.  If you decide to isntall automations ofn your
> character, Caveat Emptor,

It seems to me that the same argument can be made of abusing a game
bug.  If the admins don't want automations, they should explicitly
state so.

>and I'm generically opposed to artificial
> activity distinctions (such as voice-of-God enforced PK/non-PK
> areas) in game worlds

Doesn't matter if you're opposed to them.  The admins in this case
had instituted them.

> Were the game to have support for funny bones, and the same newbie
> ran about striking people on their funny bones causing them to drop
> all they were carrying while chatting in the pub...  Would that be
> an abuse?

Beats me, depends on what the admins said.  It's a rather absurd
example since it doesn't actually pose any question.  If the funny
bone was programmed in, and it is not a game bug, then it would
seem to not be an abuse to hit people on the funny bone.

> > (In both cases above, the incidents which made me mad enough to
> > cheat were caused by the gods not immediately enforcing the
> > rules.)
>
> Who defined and pulicised the rules?  You or the admins?  How were
> they promulgated?

The admins defined and publicized the rules - they were required
reading before playing, and any changes were placed as notices on
the login screen.

My original point still stands - disconnecting or disciplining an
abusive player immediately prevents more widespread abuse. 



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev