[MUD-Dev] Sony to ban sale of online characters from its popular gaming sites

Tue Apr 11 15:54:51 CEST 2000

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01BFA3CE.45AE3B20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

F. Randall Farmer wrote:
> Comments? Any EQ guys wanna share some thoughts? :-)

Disclaimer:  The following represents my own personal opinion and in no =
way
reflects the opinion of Verant Interactive, 989 Studios, and/or Sony =
Online
Entertainment.

    Even as the OOC sale of items, characters, and/or information is =
frowned
upon (or "illegal") on most MUDs, EQ (or any other _persistent_ online =
game
with transferable goods) must take the same, if not a more strict, =
stance.
The ramifications of directly, or indirectly, condoning or ignoring this
issue puts the viability and longevity of the game at risk.  When money =
is
involved, the anti-social nature of people becomes more predominant.
Camping, kill-stealing, fraud, harassment, and numerous other types of
problematic behaviors become more acceptable, even to those with a =
distaste
for such action, when the trade-off involves increasing their RL =
personal
wealth.  Additionally, the gross anonymity of the environment can create =
a
perception that the potential consequences are less =
effective/meaningful.
Such behavior is not tolerated in RL due to RL consequences that =
_directly_
affect the offender: fines, jail, social exile, etc etc.  The only per =
se
consequence is the banning of their account and the loss of any =
financial
investment made up to that point.  If the monetary gain via "forbidden"
behavior is greater than the penalty, then the offender still comes out
ahead with a net gain (positive reinforcement) for negative action.  The
guilt/empathy for the negatively affected party is irrelevant.

    Noting that this negative action (negative from the vantage of =
everyone
_but_ the offender)  provides positive reinforcement, the developers =
must
evaluate the repercussions of this behavior on the overall game (or
profitability, if a commercial venture).  If the actions of one person
negatively affects multiple people (potentially causing them to become
frustrated and cancel their account), then it is in the best interest of =
the
developer to REMOVE the malignant person(s) by any means necessary,
including (if necessary) banning of BOTH seller and buyer, and legal =
action
against the facilitator of the sale/transfer of goods and funds (eBay, =
other
auction sites, or any other "convenient" means of connecting seller and
buyer).

    Now for those still dwelling on design "flaws" that magnify the =
problem,
let me state that they only _magnify_ the underlying issues which are a
mere matter of psychology and "human nature".  Although design IN-GAME =
can
curb this type of negative behavior, or at least help alleviate some of =
the
symptoms, the problem still exists and the only way to effectively stomp =
it
out is to remove the facilitator/middleman.  It was noted recently in =
the
"online economics" thread that if people view a trade as potentially =
risky
and there is no middleman with a strong reputation for "fairness", the
potential trades will shrink tremendously.  It is _IMPOSSIBLE_ to =
eradicate
the root of the problem (short of removing all "trade" from a game), but =
it
is still within the hands of the developers to minimize the overall =
issue.

~Ryan Palacio
EQ/EQ:ROK Game Designer
Verant Interactive

------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01BFA3CE.45AE3B20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3013.2600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>F. Randall Farmer wrote:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Comments? Any EQ guys wanna share =
some=20
thoughts? :-)<BR><BR>Disclaimer:  The following represents my own =
personal=20
opinion and in no way<BR>reflects the opinion of Verant Interactive, 989 =

Studios, and/or Sony Online<BR>Entertainment.<BR><BR>    =
Even as=20
the OOC sale of items, characters, and/or information is frowned<BR>upon =
(or=20
"illegal") on most MUDs, EQ (or any other _persistent_ online =
game<BR>with=20
transferable goods) must take the same, if not a more strict, =
stance.<BR>The=20
ramifications of directly, or indirectly, condoning or ignoring =
this<BR>issue=20
puts the viability and longevity of the game at risk.  When money=20
is<BR>involved, the anti-social nature of people becomes more=20
predominant.<BR>Camping, kill-stealing, fraud, harassment, and numerous =
other=20
types of<BR>problematic behaviors become more acceptable, even to those =
with a=20
distaste<BR>for such action, when the trade-off involves increasing =
their RL=20
personal<BR>wealth.  Additionally, the gross anonymity of the =
environment=20
can create a<BR>perception that the potential consequences are less=20
effective/meaningful.<BR>Such behavior is not tolerated in RL due to RL=20
consequences that _directly_<BR>affect the offender: fines, jail, social =
exile,=20
etc etc.  The only per se<BR>consequence is the banning of their =
account=20
and the loss of any financial<BR>investment made up to that point.  =
If the=20
monetary gain via "forbidden"<BR>behavior is greater than the penalty, =
then the=20
offender still comes out<BR>ahead with a net gain (positive =
reinforcement) for=20
negative action.  The<BR>guilt/empathy for the negatively affected =
party is=20
irrelevant.<BR><BR>    Noting that this negative action =
(negative=20
from the vantage of everyone<BR>_but_ the offender)  provides =
positive=20
reinforcement, the developers must<BR>evaluate the repercussions of this =

behavior on the overall game (or<BR>profitability, if a commercial=20
venture).  If the actions of one person<BR>negatively affects =
multiple=20
people (potentially causing them to become<BR>frustrated and cancel =
their=20
account), then it is in the best interest of the<BR>developer to REMOVE =
the=20
malignant person(s) by any means necessary,<BR>including (if necessary) =
banning=20
of BOTH seller and buyer, and legal action<BR>against the facilitator of =
the=20
sale/transfer of goods and funds (eBay, other<BR>auction sites, or any =
other=20
"convenient" means of connecting seller =
and<BR>buyer).<BR><BR>   =20
Now for those still dwelling on design "flaws" that magnify the =
problem,<BR>let=20
me state that they only _magnify_ the underlying issues which are =
a<BR>mere=20
matter of psychology and "human nature".  Although design IN-GAME=20
can<BR>curb this type of negative behavior, or at least help alleviate =
some of=20
the<BR>symptoms, the problem still exists and the only way to =
effectively stomp=20
it<BR>out is to remove the facilitator/middleman.  It was noted =
recently in=20
the<BR>"online economics" thread that if people view a trade as =
potentially=20
risky<BR>and there is no middleman with a strong reputation for =
"fairness",=20
the<BR>potential trades will shrink tremendously.  It is =
_IMPOSSIBLE_ to=20
eradicate<BR>the root of the problem (short of removing all "trade" from =
a=20
game), but it<BR>is still within the hands of the developers to minimize =
the=20
overall issue.<BR><BR>~Ryan Palacio<BR>EQ/EQ:ROK Game Designer<BR>Verant =

Interactive<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0AB9_01BFA3CE.45AE3B20--

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