[MUD-Dev] Criminalize Community Volunteers?

[F. Randall Farmer]

> >"The End of Smurfs?"
> >Written by: Bruce Rolston
> >Published: September 1, 2000
> >http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=smurfs

I love the press. :-P

Creating value isn't the question at hand and this isn't
the end of volunteers by any stretch of the imagination.


The idea that volunteers are the ones "creating AOL's
content" is rather narrow sighted.

The USERS create the bulk of AOL's content (chat, BBS, uploads),
and they _pay_ for the privilege. Always have, always will.

Are AOL's customers employees? I don't think so.

The volunteers create some content too, but just don't have
to pay. Well, until UO's latest. :-)

What is really at the root of this lawsuit is the legal
definition of an employee. When this first hit six months
ago, it didn't look like the volunteers for any world that
I ever built could be considered "employees" in any legal
sense I've been able to determine.

Here's the facts: There will always be community volunteers,
official or otherwise. Just try to STOP them from forming
groups with leaders and helpers. :-) And based on law,
there's absolutely no problem with it.

No matter what, this case will probably clarify what it
is to be  an online volunteer is vs. an employee. A
company's for-profit status won't be the key factor:
it's compensation, commitment, working environment, and
job requirements/selection that will more likely
be the differences.

It may end up being that _any_ monetary compensation
(or in kind) will be the defining factor. That is what
UO obviously thinks. That'd be a shame, IMO, but it
isn't the end-all of volunteers. Not at all. The Palace
doesn't pay its Helpers/Hosts/Moderators in any way.
And we're not all that worried about this suit.

Randy













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