[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
> Matthew Mihaly
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 3:05 AM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] Declaration of the Rights of Avatars
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000, Raph Koster wrote:
>
> Damn it. This is much more general and harder to argue with. What the hell
> fun is that? Still, I'll give it a try.

Thing is, though, it's the same set of rules.

> > Articles:
> >
> > 2. Mud players are people, and therefore they have the rights of people:
> > libery, property, security, and freedom from oppression.
>
> So you aren't allowed to have the orcs invade and oppress the populace,
> thus making them want to kick some orc butt? What about NPC thieves?

There's that "it's a game" thing again. :)

> > 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."
>
> Naah, this isn't true at all in smaller muds (like Achaea).

All of my experience on smaller muds has indicated that having a clear code
of conduct and sticking to it makes for a MUCH smoother administration.

>  In fact, in a way, having some unposted rules is a good thing for a game
like ours.

Doesn't "action taken to keep the mud from going poof" provide enough
leeway? I can certainly justify almost anything with a loophole that big. :)

> It helps discourage idiots, because
> idiots, as I use the term, are the types that are either too stupid or too
> self-centered to try and understand community norms, and follow them.

Yep, that fits the bill. :)

cf the Minnie case (and the Finn case come to think of it) described in "My
Tiny Life" for what can happen if unwritten rules are used against an idiot
and then others start to fear that it could be used against them with less
cause. It's a very slippery slope.

> They
> are the types who will consistently violate community norms in ways that
> are clearly counter-productive to the game, but which are hard to point to
> and say "ooh ooh, illegal!" I have better things to do than spend my time
> trying think of everything that could be counter-productive.

So you are speaking of players who have estabilshed a pattern. All this
requires is, when they do something, insert the illegal activity into the
code of conduct. Then zap 'em the next time. They are pattern problems, they
can't help hitting one rule or another. We found in UO that going after
harassers made a huge dent in our playerkilling population, for example.

> > 15. No exceptions to the code of conduct--it applies to everyone.
>
> Screw that! Bad customers have less rights than good customers. That's not
> a new concept in the service industry. (Define 'good' and 'bad' however
> you want. In the sense that I use it, those who pay more have the right to
> break more rules before being punished, though of it's not a one-to-one
> match, as there are always other factors, etc.)

I think you misunderstand the application of the article here. It doesn't
say anything about not keeping records, establishing more severe penalties
for repeated infractions, curtailing the freedoms of players with long admin
records, etc. Presumably someone who has a long admin record isn't going to
be considered a "good customer" anymore, right?

In a commercial endeavor, it makes sense to include money as a factor. Good
customers may well get permitted more infractions, because the definition of
an admin record is "things that cost us money (via admin time spent)." As
long as this is in the code of conduct, and applies equally well to two
different good customers who have paid the same amount, then you're
fulfilling the letter of the article.

I'd submit to you that the enhanced recordkeeping alone from doing that
would probably streamline your costs and make for netter business decisions
when the time comes to punish someone. ;)

> > 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.
>
> You have to warn people against this???

Not sure what you mean.

Do we have to warn players about it? Sure, they need to know that sometimes
it happens, and that sometimes we can aoplogize decently and sometimes we
can't, and that we're wiping out weeks of their hardearned efforts. It's
both common decency and (if commercial) good business practice.

Do we have to warn admins? Oh God yes, I don't know how many muds I've seen
who were cheerfully oblivious to this.

> > 18. Players have a right to privacy. Don't snoop them or spy on them or
> > rifle through their mail unless you are investigating a code of conduct
> > violation.
>
> Well. I mainly agree with this, but I will say that our Gods have the
> power to watch people's input, though not if the players are in certain
> 'private' rooms. I allow it (rather grudgingly) because it increases the
> perception of Godly omnipotence which is good for the roleplaying in our
> game. Still, I do caution the Gods not to overuse this power, and I'm
> getting rather queasy thinking about it being there as I write this.

You can probably get better "godly omnipotence" coverage via automated means
if that is your goal. My experience is that privacy violations are the
commonest admin abuse, and that it is so widespread as to be considered a
perk by admins. I personally find it repellent.

-Raph




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