[MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars

[Jeff Freeman]

At 12:32 AM 4/17/00 -0500, Raph wrote:

>> From Travis Casey
>> Suggestion:  Rewrite the whole thing in modern English.  In many cases

This makes it much easier to respond to...

>Mud players are people. They don't stop being people when they log on.
>Therefore they deserve to be treated like people. Thi smeans they have the
>rights of people.

The first fundamental right that a person has is the right to exist, and we
deny folks that right, if not "all the time", often enough.  But it seems
weird to start out a declaration of rights with "You have the right to
exist if the admin says you do."

I let the a player "review board" read applications to join the MUD and
vote whether to accept or reject new applicants, so those players (but not
all players - just the ones on the review board) have the right to decide
which other people are allowed to exist.  And even the review board only
has that right because I let them have it.  I still sign people up - my
brother and kids for example - without asking the review board's permission.

> By joining a mud, they join a ommunity of people. Rights
>arise from the community. But there's always someone with their finger on
>the power switch. But he's part of the community too, and should use his
>powers for the common good and the survival of the community.

Maybe we're in a strange setup... I'm the Admin, but I don't have my finger
on the power switch.  Twice now we've had to move to a new host because the
guy with his finger on the power switch had to push it, but it's still my
mud - meaning, I'm still the Head Admin.  This could lead to a situation
where a host bans 
*me*, and I move the mud to a new host while he keeps running the mud on
his site as well - and arguments about which one of us have the real MUD.
I would suppose the players would decide that, and they wouldn't all agree.
 Sort of clouds the issue over who is really "in charge" - but still it
comes down to who has the power rather than who has what rights.

It also means that I might not be able to pull the plug on the MUD.  He
can't, because I'll just find a new host and we'll continue.  The most I
could do would be to resign, and I'm becoming less and less critical to the
continued existance of the MUD every day.

Eventually, maybe we'll have a MUD that no one can kill (at least not by
saying "I quit - this MUD no longer exists.  All you people go play
somewhere else.") - maybe we're already there now - but I still have final
say over everything and they only have what rights I give them.

>2. Mud players are people, and therefore they have the rights of people:
>libery, property, security, and freedom from oppression.

What if oppression is part of the game?

Related note/example:

We have a small network of people running POL (UO emulator software) and we
share scripts, ideas, etc.  We also share the IP addresses of jerks - so
someone banned from one of us tends to be banned from all of us.  Except
one fellow, who runs his mud specifically for the purposes of a) testing
scripts because he likes writing scripts, and b) torturing people that have
been banned from other muds.  When we say "So-n-so was banned, this is
so-n-so's IP" and everyone adds that IP to their ban list, he says "What
was that fellow's email address?"  He invites them to come play on his mud,
where he's writing and testing his scripts, so that when he gets bored with
scripting he can go do mean things to them.

Now, *I* would never do something like that.  But I do send him the email
addresses.

>3. Somewhere, there's a guy with his finger on the power button. What he
>says ultimately goes.

As I said, our situation is a bit different.  The guy with his finger on
the power switch isn't the Final Word.  And although I'm the final word,
I'm not entirely positive I could pull the plug on the mud.  If I quit, it
would probably die, but might not.  If he pulls the plug, we'll just go to
a different host.

>The mud players have the right to know the code of
>conduct he is going to enforce over them, and what rules and standards he's
>going to use when he makes a decision. Otherwise, they are suckers and
>deserve what mistreatment they get.

But they don't really.  They only have whatever rights The Man is willing
to give them.

>5. The code of conduct shouldn't be capricious and arbitrary. The rules
>should be based on what is good for the mud (and for the good of the mud's
>hardware, software, and data).

But I rather like the fellow's "purgatory mud" where bannished souls are
sent to suffer.  The rules are based on what's good for the admin's
entertainment, since he doesn't want to run a mud anyway, and just has it
up for testing purposes.  They have the right to suffer, and that's about it.

>6. The code of conduct should evolve based on the way the mud culture
>evolves, and players should get a say in how it evolves. The mud admins get
>to write it however they want, but they have an obligation to listen or else
>the players might leave.

I think this sort of contradicts the earlier statement regarding the fact
that you can leave the mud doesn't change the fact that these are your
"rights".

But there is one right that players do have:  The right to log out.  They
also have various other rights, at least here in the States.  I can't, even
as Head Admin Guy, go talk dirty to the 12 year olds, for example.  I don't
think that's the sort of thing you had in mind here though.

>7. You can't punish someone for something that isn't the code of conduct.
>Abusing your wiz powers is a serious crime. If you are caught in a violation
>of the code of conduct, fess up.

Not sure what a "wizard" is.  We have other admins, but they aren't allowed
to punish anyone.

>8. You can't punish someone in a way not in the code of conduct, and you the
>admin don't get to rewrite the code of conduct after the fact to make it
>legal. The only exception is action taken to keep the mud from going "poof."

A lot of these articles seem to be saying 'Doing X would cause the MUD to
go "poof" because all the players would quit, so you can't do X, unless not
doing X would make the mud go "poof", in which case you MUST do X.'

>15. No exceptions to the code of conduct--it applies to everyone.

But it doesn't apply to everyone.  Specifically, it doesn't apply to the
guy with his finger on the power button (except in our case, but generally
it doesn't, and wouldn't, if I were the guy with my finger on the power
button).  I mean, you can't ban the Head Admin, and rules without any
possible way to enforce them aren't rules at all.

>16. Don't playerwipe/data wipe unless the mud can't survive unless you do.
>If you do have to wipe someone, make it up to them somehow.

The '...so you can't do X, unless not doing X would make the mud go
"poof"...'  article again...

Thanks, that was fun.

--
 http://dundee.uong.com/




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