[MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

[Geoffrey A. MacDougall]

Raph,

You jokingly bemoaned on the Meta list that no one ever responded to
your posts - so, I'll try my best to satisfy your desire for feedback.
:)

And, I hope, there will be some reaction to my comments as well...

Raph Koster wrote:

>A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars
>When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and
>said
>modes are different enough from the existing ones that question arises
>as to
>become a
>the
>intent of the creators of said venue; and at a time when said
>communities
>and spaces are rising in popularity and are now widely exploited for
>commercial gain; it behooves those involved in said communities and
>venues
>to affirm and declare the inalienable rights of the members of said
>communities.

May I suggest the writings of Dr. Barry Wellman, U of Toronto Sociology,
found in Kossock's Communities in Cyberspace, where he convincingly
argues the only real difference the Internet makes to community
structures is that it increases the speed of communication - not it's
quality.  This point is made quite apparent by comparing the articles
that were written about the effects the telephone was to have upon
society, to contemporary articles about the Internet.  The similarities
are quite striking - and therefore drive one to question what all the
current fuss is about.

>Therefore herein have been set forth those rights which are
>inalienable rights of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of all sorts,
in
>their form henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that this
>declaration
>may continually remind those who hold power over virtual spaces and the
>avatars contained therein of their duties and responsibilities;

Should they choose to accept them.  Before one can assign and specify
rights, one has to know what a right is - and this is a highly
controversial subject.  I've posted about the nature of rights in the
virtual world before - so I'll try to keep this short.  There is no set
definition of a right, and many different interpretations.  The one I
believe, and use, is that a right is a trump card against the will of
government, granted to the members of a population by the members of the
same population - the same body that grants the government the power to
act on their behalf.  (At least within western democracies, which I'll
talk more about later.)  So - a right is something I grant other people
so they don't have to do what I want them to do.  So, if I'm giving them
the power to disregard my wishes, why can't I simply revoke the power?
Because, supposedly, I'll want the same privilege a little further down
the line...  Hence the contradictory nature of rights - and the source
of the political debate that has surrounded them since their modern
inception.

So, working from this defintion, I would argue that the only rights that
exist within the virtual world are those that are granted to the players
by the players - assuming the admin considers themselves to be part of
the community - as you address further on.  If admins see themselves as
above the community, then this whole exercise is for naught.

>in order
>that the forms of administration of a virtual space may be at any time
>compared to that of other virtual spaces;

This is destined for failure - because rl governments do not have the
power to control physical reality, metaphysics, and spiritulity in the
stroke of a button.  So the administration of a vw is never going to be
comparable to that of the rw - and any conclusions based upon this
assumption are going to be inherently invalid.

>and in order that the
>grievances
>of players may hereafter be judged against the explicit rights set
>forth, to
>better govern the virtual space and improve the general welfare and
>happiness of all.

Great intent.  However, as with above, I think that this amounts to
little more that wishful thinking, because it will always be up to the
admins to choose what rules they must follow.  But, to avoid being
repetitive, for the rest of this post, I'm going to leave this argument
aside, and work within the confines of your hypothesis.

>Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident:
>That
>avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online medium, and
>that
>their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions should be considered
>to be
>as valid as the utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions of people
in
>any
>other forum, venue, location, or space.

What about worlds where the AI plays a major and fundamental role?  Are
they too to be considered manifestations of people?  If not, then how
are we to create truly immersive worlds where the player is able to
interact with PCs and NPCs alike without altering the player's
behaviour, or being forced to operate along two distinct sets of
guidelines?  If I have to respect a PCs rights, and not an NPCs, does
this not break the immersion, by constantly highlighting the difference
between the beings with which I'm interacting?

>That the well-established rights
>of
>man approved by the National Assembly of France on August 26th of 1789
>do
>therefore apply to avatars in full measure

May I suggest the United Nations Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a
more contemporary, and cross-culturally minded guideline from which to
continue this rather cool exercise.

> saving only the aspects of
>said
>rights that do not pertain in a virtual space or which must be
abrogated
>in
>order to ensure the continued existence of the space in question.

By leaving this ill-defined, you've opened the door for years of
constitutional trials and arguments about what is and is not required to
sustain the space - and, arguably, defeated the entire point of trying
to clarify and illustrate what rights _are_ guaranteed.

>That
>by
>the act of affirming membership in the community within the virtual
>space,

How?  What constitutes an affirment, vs an interaction, vs a friendly
social call?  Participation in real life is affirmed by the inability to
withdraw physical presence.  The same inability does not exist in the
vw.

>the avatars form a social contract with the community, forming a
>populace
>which may and must

"must" - What if the purpose of the community is to reject rights?
Should they not be able to do whatever they want to do?  And, yes, this
ability is, in itself, a kind of right which would violate the founding
principle of the community at question - but let's leave that aside for
now. :)

> self-affirm and self-impose rights and concomitant
>restrictions upon their behavior. That the nature of virtual spaces is
>such
>that there must, by physical law, always be a higher power or
>administrator
>who maintains the space

Forgive my technical ignorance, but aren't there some MOO models where
this isn't valid?  Hosted by more than one server, etc...  I'm not sure
of this one, however...

>and has complete power over all participants,
>but
>who is undeniably part of the community formed within the space

Ahem...  I would like to believe this true - but I'm sure many on this
list would not view themselves as a part of the community they oversee -
and therefore immune to any kind of player-mandated action.

>and who
>must
>therefore take action in accord with that which benefits the space as
>well
>as the participants,

Commercial MUDs are forced into this to maintain financial viability,
and hobby MUDs can choose to just benefit their friends.

>and who therefore also has the rights of avatars
>and
>may have other rights as well.

Such as the Not-withstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, which allow provincial governments to ignore Supreme Court
rulings, and do what ever they want anyway.

Again, "other rights as well" permanently opens the door to the very
authoritarian regimes I think you're trying to prevent.

>That the ease of moving between virtual
>spaces and the potential transience of the community do not limit or
>reduce
>the level of emotional and social involvement that avatars may have
with
>the
>community, and that therefore the ease of moving between virtual spaces
>and
>the potential transience of the community do not in any way limit,
>curtail,
>or remove these rights from avatars on the alleged grounds that avatars
>can
>always simply leave.

I like this one - IMHO, it's well worded.  It also serves it's purpose
well, which, if I'm to interpret it correctly, is to head-off any
critics who might view the fleeting nature of the virtual world as a
factor undermining its validity.

>Articles:

>	1.	Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special
>powers or
>privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based on
>whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power.

This is very Rawlsian of you.  He argues that inequality within society
is only justified if it improves the standing of the lowest common
denominator.

>Those
>who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only the
>rights
>of normal avatars.

>	2.	The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its
>citizenry, from
>which arise the rights of avatars.

I think the beauty of virtual communities is their ability to be
whatever we want them to be, for any purpose.  Even if the purpose is to
piss upon everyone who tries to join.  I think Article 2, by defining
the aim of virtual communities, is limiting, as opposed to liberating.

>Foremost among these rights is the
>right
>to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless, soulless
>puppets.

What if I want to be treated as a dog?  Or a Volarian?

>Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
>inalienable
>rights of man.

What about women & its?  (A little inclusive language jab. *g*)

>These rights are liberty, property, security, and
>resistance
>to oppression.

These are very Western rights.  Not all societies grant the right to
property.  Not all societies grant the right to freedom from oppression.
Are we founding an arguably international treatise of rights upon
western values?  Isn't this a little arrogant?

Part of the wonder of the vw is the ability to explore alterior paths of
existence without doing significant damage to rw persons.  By imposing
rw values on the vw, we limit the exploratory nature of the vw.

>	3.	The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space
>resides in the
>inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who
controls
>the
>hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the software with
>which
>it is created, and the database which makes up its existence. However,
>the
>body populace has the right to know and demand the enforcement of the
>standards by which this individual uses this power over the community,
>as
>authority must proceed from the community;

So unenforcable as to be meaningless - but I promised not to bring this
point up again. :)

>a community that does not
>know
>the standards by which the administrators use their power is a
community
>which permits its administrators to have no standards, and is therefore
>a
>community abetting in tyranny.

What if the people in the community want tyranny?  I've posted before
about contrary perceptions and definitions of freedom.  There is the
freedom from choice, as well as the freedom to choose.  Many argue that
having other people make decisions for you is more liberating.  Are we
correct to strip people of this privilege?

>	4.	Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which
>injures no one else
>including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
>instantiated
>on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural rights of
>avatars
>are therefore limited solely by the rights of other avatars sharing the
>same
>space and participating in the same community. These limits can only be
>determined by a clear code of conduct.

There are many other ways of determining rights than by arbitrary and
imposed rule sets.  Also, I don't think we're going to be able to solve
the freedom from vs freedom to debate on this list. :)  Does my right to
walk with my sword extended trump your right not to be impaled?  Does my
right to freedom of speech trump your right for privacy?  I don't think
we're going to be able to answer this one...

>	5.	The code of conduct can only prohibit those actions and
>utterances that
>are hurtful to society,

By whose definition?  What's hurtful?

>inclusive of the harm that may be done to the
>fabric
>of the virtual space via hurt done to the hardware, software, or data;
>and
>likewise inclusive of the harm that may be done to the individual who
>maintains said hardware, software, or data, in that harm done to this
>individual may result in direct harm done to the community.

You've just granted admins the freedom from harm, which contradicts your
previous assertion that they are an inherent member of the community,
subject to the same dangers as everyone else.

>	6.	The code of conduct is the expression of the general
>will of the
>community and the will of the individual who maintains the hardware and
>software that makes up the virtual space. Every member of the community
>has
>the right to contribute either directly or via representatives in the
>shaping of the code of conduct as the culture of the virtual space
>evolves,
>particularly as it evolves in directions that the administrator did not
>predict;

Can guests contribute?  Does every contribution have to be respected?
Who deems whose contributions are worthy?  Does merely being present in
the world give you the right to alter its course?  Do you automatically
become a 'citizen' or must you first pass some hurdles?

>the ultimate right of the administrator to shape and define the
>code of conduct shall not be abrogated, but it is clear that the
>administrator therefore has the duty and responsibility to work with
the
>community to arrive at a code of conduct that is shaped by the input of
>the
>community.

Basically - all this does is tell the admin that they have to listen to
their players.  But listening to and acting upon are two different
things - as made obvious by majority governments, who do what they want
regardless of the comments made by the official opposition.  The
government listens, says thanks, and then does what they want anyway...

>As a member of the community himself, the administrator would
>be
>damaging the community itself if he failed in this responsibility,

This is an opinion - not a certainty.

>for
>abrogation of this right of avatars could result in the loss of
>population
>and therefore damage to the common weal.

>	7.	No avatar shall be accused, muzzled, toaded, jailed,
>banned, or
>otherwise punished except in the cases and according to the forms
>prescribed
>by the code of conduct. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or
>causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished, even if
>said
>individual is one who has been granted special powers or privileges
>within
>the virtual space. But any avatar summoned or arrested in virtue of the
>code
>of conduct shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an
>offense.

Sure - but these are no longer rights.  These are laws.  Rights would be
trumps against laws like the code of conduct.  So, in essence, what
you're saying is that people have the right not to be banned unless the
law says they have to be banned.  Which, is kind of like the League of
Arab States' guaranteed right of Freedom of Religion - so long as the
religion is state approved.  In otherwords, window dressing - not a
right at all.

>	8.	The code of conduct shall provide for such punishments
>only as are
>strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment
>except
>it be legally inflicted according to the provisions of a code of
conduct
>promulgated before the commission of the offense; save in the case
where
>the
>offense endangered the continued existence of the virtual space by
>attacking
>the hardware or software that provide the physical existence of the
>space.

Rights are trumps against the tyranny of the majority.  (ala Dworkin)
If every member of the community always agreed upon what course of
action should be taken, there would never be a need for rights, because
they would never be exercised.  So, since the code of conduct is
established by the majority, the rights, as you're beginning to compose
them, are useless - because the majority has the ability to strip away
any power granted to the individual by a right by amending the code of
conduct.

The first part of this list was cool - because you were still describing
and composing rights.  The stuff you're listing now are laws - not
rights.

>	9.	As all avatars are held innocent until they shall have
>been declared
>guilty, if detainment, temporary banning, jailing, gluing, freezing, or
>toading shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to
>the
>securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by the
>code of
>conduct.

The French Civil Code deems that the burden of proof is on the accused,
not the accuser.  Again, we're taking a rather North-American centric
perspective.  And, as I mentioned earlier, I, as a game designer with a
background in and love of political theory, would not respect a Charter
of Rights that forbid me from toying with alternative socio-political
structures.

>	10.	No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions,
>provided their
>manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the code
>of
>conduct.

What if that was a key part of the world's storyline?  What if the whole
point of the game was to overcome oppression?  Doesn't this limit a
designer's ability to create hurdles and barriers for the player base to
overcome?

The problem with a lot of these descriptions is that while the meaning
can be gleamed by the overall intent of the statement, the exact wording
does not adequately address potential exceptions to the rule.

This problem, however, exists in most statements of Rights.  For
example, by much of Canadian anti-child pornography legislation, much of
Dawson's Creek could be banned if one was to obey the letter of the law.
:)

>	11.	The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of
>the most
>precious of the rights of man. Every avatar may, accordingly, speak,
>write,
>chat, post, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such
>abuses
>of this freedom as shall be defined by the code of conduct, most
>particularly the abuse of affecting the performance of the space or the
>performance of a given avatar's representation of the space.

The right to complete freedom of speech is not even granted to people in
Canada, much less the rest of the world.  (I'm Canadian, btw - before
any other Canucks get mad. *g* ) And, again, the Code of Conduct, being
determined by the majority, can have no influence upon the rights
granted the 'citizenry'.

Otherwise, the rights have no teeth.

>	12.	The security of the rights of avatars requires the
>existence of avatars
>with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to enforce the
>provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and privileges are
>therefore
>granted for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those
>to
>whom they shall be entrusted. These powers and privileges are also
>therefore
>not an entitlement, and can and should be removed in any instance where
>they
>are no longer used for the good of all, even if the offense is merely
>inactivity.

Who removes them?  Who grants them?

<<snipped Articles 13 & 14, as they fall within previous arguments>>

>	15.	A virtual community in which the observance of the code
>of conduct is
>not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined, has no
>constitution at all.

Who are we to determine what is and is not a constitution?  In order not
to render this exercise completely invalid, we have to abstain from
making value statements.  The UN Charter of R&F is only even remotely
applicable because it does not condemn.  It only contains positive, not
negative statements.  Therefore, everyone can claim to be respecting the
Charter, even if others don't think they actually are.

I think we have to acknowledge that any participation in this kind of
Charter would be strictly voluntary.  Therefore, in the interests of
diplomacy, we shouldn't include statements that are going to alienate
people from signing on to the document.  Once they've signed, we can use
peer pressure to reform them, but seeing as they can tell us all to go
to h*** whenever they want, we should make every available effort not to
drive them away - if we want any kind of compliance at all.

>	16.	Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, and
>the virtual
>equivalent is integrity and persistence of data, no one shall be
>deprived
>thereof except where public necessity, legally determined per the code
>of
>conduct, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the
>avatar
>shall have been previously and equitably indemnified, saving only cases
>wherein the continued existence of the space is jeopardized by the
>existence
>or integrity of said data.

I would argue this has too many exceptions to bother stating in the
first place.  You're only arming people with the ability to complain and
be pissed off, while giving the admin the power to ignore the
complaints.

>	17.	The administrators of the virtual space shall not
>abridge the freedom
>of assembly, save to preserve the performance and continued viability
of
>the
>virtual space.

Unless its part of the storyline?  Wouldn't Lord British bringing in his
guards to dispell an angry mob have been a cool way of generating
community-reinforcing conflict?  Although this activity could be covered
by the latter sub-phrase of the Article.

>	18.	Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons,
>communications,
>designated private spaces, and effects, against unreasonable snooping,
>eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no activity pertaining thereto
>shall
>be undertaken by administrators save with probable cause supported by
>affirmation, particularly describing the goal of said investigations.

Here we will get into trouble with RL laws.  Not every country grants
their citizens the ability to communicate freely and in private across
the Internet.  How would you rectify these discrepancies?

>	19.	The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be
>construed to
>deny or disparage others retained by avatars.

So then what is it supposed to do? :)

I think clause 19 strips this document of any weight it may have had to
begin with.  Since there is obviously no stick to force people to
comply, let's work to fill this list full of carrots.

Despite my remarks above, I think you've done quite a good job of
identifying the areas that we, as designers, need to explore and
understand.  No one is ever going to agree on a singular course of
action, and no one is ever going to let the other signatories to the
Charter force them into compliance, but the Charter can be used as a
educational guide by which well-minded admins and designers can judge
their actions.  And, it is in this latter, and sole respect, that I
think a document such as this one has tremendous merit.

Some thoughts...

Cheers,

Geoffrey MacDougall
www.intangibleproductions.com

>	- January 26th, 2000




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