[MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

[Travis Casey]

On Sunday, April 16, 2000, Raph Koster wrote:

> This is in the nature of a thought experiment. I've had it around for a
> while. It is based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man and on the Bill
> of Rights. It is intentionally controversial. Please argue. :) If you think
> it's ridiculous, please give arguments why this is so. If you like, start
> separate threads for each article.

Sure thing...

> A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

Ridiculous point 1:  The rights of avatars?  Would you make a
"declaration of the rights of chess pieces"?  Or a "declaration of the
rights of monopoly tokens"?

The *users* of a virtual space may have rights -- but the *avatars*
are nothing more than representations, and do not and *cannot* have
rights.  I'd reword the whole thing to talk about "users" or
"participants" rather than "avatars".

Ridiculous point 2:  The entire document fails to recognize that many
virtual communities are *games*, and that the violation of people's
rights may occur within the game, even though the mud itself assures
those rights in out-of-character contexts.  I'll point to specific
examples as I go through.

Suggestion:  Rewrite the whole thing in modern English.  In many cases
you're using sentence structures, phrasings, and word choices that,
while they were current in the late 1700's, no longer mean quite what
they did then.

[snip a bunch]

> 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 don't buy this.  Why should the creator of an online community --
especially one which is created explicitly for the purpose of
entertainment -- be bound to do certain things simply because others
have chosen to make an emotional or social investment in his/her
construct?

Analogies are inevitably not quite right, but I'm going to give some
anyways:  Should the author of a series of books be required to keep
writing them simply because people who have read them want him/her to?
Even if those people have formed book clubs around reading his/her
books as they come out?  If hundreds or thousands of people have
emotionally identified themselves with a character in those books,
should the author therefore be restricted in what he/she can have
happen to that character?

[snipping articles which I agree with or which are just "setup" for
later articles]

>         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; 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.

This should be rewritten to recognize that these may not be controlled
by a single individual.

>         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.

This makes no sense.  Taken as it is written, this means that if two
virtual communities run on the same server, the participants in one
community can do whatever they want without regard for how it might
affect the other community -- e.g., cause their communities
process(es) to use most of the CPU.

Of course, you may have meant "and" in the conjunctive sense, in which
case these might be "sharing the same space".  Perhaps you should
rewrite it to make that clear, and to say "sharing the same resources"
rather than "sharing the same space"?

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

This fails to recognize that some communities are games.  By this, it
is not and cannot be legal for an NPC sorceror to cast a spell that
limits how a character can act.  It also cannot be legal for a game to
be set in a society that limits how people can act or speak and try to
actually implement such restrictions within the game.

>         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.

The previous sentence does not mean what you intend it to mean.
Someone attempting to run a game of "Simon Says" is giving "arbitrary
orders."  Should anyone trying to do that be punished?  Not all
"arbitrary orders" are necessarily orders to do something illegal to
someone.  Again, this doesn't recognize that some communities are games.
Arbitrary orders may be part of a game -- for example, an evil king
might order his servants to hunt down and kill someone for no
particular reason.

>  But any avatar summoned or arrested in virtue of the code
> of conduct shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

I think you mean "by virtue of", not "in virtue of".  In either case,
it's somewhat archaic and should be changed.

>         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.

This fails to recognize that some communities are games.  For example,
in a game which is set in a kingdom ruled by an evil king, characters
might be unjustly imprisoned, fined, etc. within the course of the
game.

>         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.

Again, this doesn't recognize the existence of games.  "Harshness" may
be a part of the setting.

>         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.

Disquieted?  I'm guessing that "punished" should be used here, though
I'm not entirely sure what "disquieted" is supposed to mean in this
context.  I'd also substitute "expression" for "manifestation".

Wording aside, though, this one also fails to recognize the existence
of games.  A game may have a setting in which freedom of speech is not
recognized.

>         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.

Same as above -- doesn't recognize games.

>         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.

Again, doesn't recognize the existence of games.  A character might
have special powers within a setting (e.g., be a sheriff and have the
power to order NPC police).  If the setting has a corrupt government,
it may be *expected* that they be used for personal advantage.  As for
the last part, "inactivity" of public officials may be expected in a
corrupt setting.

>         13.     A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
> maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the virtual
> space, be required in order to maintain the existence of avatars who enforce
> the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware and the software and the
> continued existence of the virtual space. Avatars have the right to know the
> nature and amount of the contribution in advance, and said required
> contribution should be equitably distributed among all the citizens without
> regard to their social position; special rights and privileges shall never
> pertain to the avatar who contributes more except insofar as the special
> powers and privileges require greater resources from the hardware, software,
> data store, or administrator manpower, and would not be possible save for
> the resources obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all
> avatars are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers and
> privileges if they so choose; nor shall any articles of this declaration be
> contingent upon a contribution being made.

This last part makes no sense, and doesn't recognize that virtual
communities also have an existence in the real world.  I can't
discontinue someone's account because they don't pay their bill?  In
combination with #16, I can't erase someone's account for not
paying their bill unless I pay them for the inconvenience!  (Since it
would destroy their "property".)

The middle part (about "special rights and privileges shall never
pertain to the avatar who contributes more...") would prevent a
community from selectively appointing administrator/coders/whatever,
since it requires that anyone who can make that contribution be able
to choose to gain those powers and privileges.

>         14.     The community has the right to require of every administrator or
> individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose of
> administration, an account of his administration.

This seriously needs rewriting.  "You want an account of my
administration?  Sure.  'Vini, vidi, vici.'"  Or, "Here's the January
statement of our petty cash account."

>         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.

Huh?  No community can "assure the observance" of the code of conduct.
The most they can do is attempt to find and punish those who do not
observe it.  What powers should be separated?  This needs serious
rewriting.

>         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.

Again, this fails to recognize the existence of games.  By this,
monsters cannot steal equipment, equipment cannot break, and characters
cannot die.

>         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.

This also fails to recognize the existence of games.  Again, in some
settings, the government of the setting may not recognize this right.

>         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.

Again, this doesn't recognize games.

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

This is a somewhat archaic usage of "shall".  I'd change it to
"should".

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_        Travis S. Casey  <efindel at io.com>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)





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