[MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

[Matthew Mihaly]

> Raph wrote:

On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Geoffrey A. MacDougall wrote:

Geoffrey hit upon many of my complaints about this Constitution (mainly
that it is very American-centric, and further that it is predicated upon
the idea that the populace has any sort of power that is not given to them
by the adminstration, unlike real life.)

 
> >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;
> 
> 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.

The admins _are_ above the community though. You can pretend all you like
that they aren't, but the fact is that, as you say, any rights given to
the players are _given_ to them, and can just as easily be taken away, and
it's the admins who have the power to do so. That in and off itself makes
them an inherently privileged class.

A disclaimer: I don't actually believe in rights, because I think they are
a rather nonsensical concept. What is a right? It's just a desire/will to
or from something. It's utterly meaningless except as a psychological
phenomenon (I find the idea of natural rights to be one of the
sillier things I've studied.) It's also meaningless practically unless you
have the _power_ to enforce your desire/will. Rights are based on power,
or they mean nothing, and in the virutal world the power resides
completely with the admins. They may give it up temporarily, but it is
their choice to give it up, and it's their choice to take it back. The
only situation I could see where this wouldn't be true would be if the
admins were to sign some sort of legally binding document with the user
base, mandating that the users shall have control, providing for the
methods by which they will have control, etc. This way, you could use the
power that exists in an existing legal system to enforce the desires/will
of the player base. This still doesn't solve issues like whether the
minority as a "right" to be free from something it deems oppressive when
the majority wishes it. 


> >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.

One can view oneself as part of the community and still feel immune to any
kind of player-mandated action. That, in fact, is my view. I listen to the
players because _I_ choose to, not because I have to. Community doesn't
require equality.

> >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.

Who defines what benefits the space and the participants? What one finds
beneficial, another will not.


> 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.

Quite right! All this  cheering for democracy is a bit nauseating *g*.

> >Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
> >inalienable
> >rights of man.
> 
> What about women & its?  (A little inclusive language jab. *g*)

Yes, and why does man alone have these inalienable rights, if they are not
merely phantoms of man's imagination? Why is it any more logical to draw a
boundary around "mankind" than around "white people" or around "mammals"?
Is intelligence to be the discriminating factor? In that case, presumably
the seriously retarded have no rights.

> 
> >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?

These certainly are very Western rights, and a VERY good case can be made
that property is inimical to liberty. See Proudhon's classic essay, "What
is Property? An Inquiry into the Principles of Right and Government." 

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

Quite. "Rights" do not exist in the absence of the power to enforce them.
They are just fantasies without power.

> 
> >	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.

I bet that I can make an argument that nearly any action either injures
the well being of the community, or harms the well-being of the community.
It all depends on how you interpret harm or benefit. 

 
> 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...

Quite.


> 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.

Indeed, though since a constitution is a meaningless piece of paper
(meaningless in the sense that it has no practical value unless those with
power choose to enforce it), the group that has enough power can simply
strip away any power granted to the individual by ignoring, throwing away,
or amending the code of conduct. 


> 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.
> :)

Comes down again to interpretation by the group in power, which is akin to
saying "We can do whatever we want." (as laws can't speak for themselves).

> 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.

I'd never sign. What's the point? I have the power in my world, just as
any other admin does, and that's not going to change. It's just an
exercise in feeling good about "empowering the community", even though
this is a load of crap in my opinion, as truly empowering the community
means giving them the admin powers, and I doubt that's going to happen on
a wide scale. 

> 
> >	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.

Since the admin seems to be the judge of this, this is meaningless.

 
> 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.

Yes, it's food for thought, but as a practical document, I can't see this
sort of thing ever being relevant. 

--matt




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