[MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

[Raph Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Eli Stevens
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:27 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raph Koster" <rkoster at austin.rr.com>
> To: "MUD-DEV" <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 12:00 AM
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars
>
[Article 13: the payment one]
>
> All this I agree with, provided that "maintain the existence" includes the
> necessity of the administrator earning a living for his/her/their work.

It does; no living, no admin; no admin, no mud.

> > and said required
> > contribution should be equitably distributed among all the citizens
without
> > regard to their social position;
>
> I think that "social position" needs a more exact (not narrower,
> more exact) definition.

Meaning, social position relative to the admin.

> > 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;
>
> Would this put Achaea in violation then?

Well, aside from the fact that there's no such thing as being "in violation"
of a hypothetical intentionally self-contradictory document... ;)

>  As I understand their system
> working, players have to pay RL money if they wish to improve skills.

Anyone can pay to get this stuff, so they're OK. It requires extra resources
for Achaea to provide this (the game COULD stop at whatever point you can
play for free) so they are OK on that score. And Matt isn't saying, "Sorry
Eli, I like JCL better than you, so I am going to take his $400 for a magic
sword of annihilation, and not sell one to you."

> I think, for the purposes of this document, that if there are fees beyond
> the common charge, they (and the benefit they provide) should be optional,
> but the costs for such luxuries should be spelled out before the person
> makes any comitment to the community.

The first clause states this already--players get to know how much the cost
will be upfront.

> Luxuries in the real word cost extra, why should they
> not in a virtual one (if the designer is so inclined)(this is a real
> question, are there good arguments why virtual luxuries should not cost?)?

Sure--see Ryan's thread on banning of eBay auctions. There's no doubt that
buying your way to level 20 or buying lvl 20 equipment is a luxury, right?

> > 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;
>
> I think that without choosing an acceptable definition of "able" this
> statement will prohibit any extra contribution for special powers.  Give
an
> example of extra contribution, and someone will be able to contrive a
reason
> why they could not give it.

You slip me $400 on the side, so I make you a wiz. But nobody else knows
that you can slip me $400 on the side and be a wiz. In fact, other people
CAN'T slip me $400 on the side and become a wiz.

> > nor shall any articles of this declaration be
> > contingent upon a contribution being made.
>
> am I correct in assuming that what you mean is "you
> don't have to pay for your rights"?  I wonder because this could be
> construed to mean something like "you don't have to pay for your avatar,
> your access or your rights".

The former. You don't have to pay for your rights. I wasn't about to propose
outlawing the for-pay mud. :)

-Raph




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