[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited

[Matt Mihaly]

On Mon, 27 May 2002, ghovs wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2002 20:01, Matt Mihaly wrote:
 
> Would you even be entitled to discover the names of people using a
> trade board for just this heinous purpose, through monitoring the
> board for realnames?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't know what the law
says. I'd be REALLY unlikely to bother though as it seems like a lot
of effort.

>> They do reserve that right, I believe. It's not user-hostile
>> either. It's disruptive-user-hostile.
 
> So a bad law is only bad for criminals? I don't think it works
> like that. All rules apply to all who (have to) agree to them, not
> just the rotten apples among those. This is begging for mistakes
> which then are never rectified, due to that excuse being what they
> all say.

Not at all. However, I'm of the belief that the best possible
government is benevolent monarchy. As the well-being and good will
of my users are at the forefront of my mind, due to the fact that I
can't pay the bills without it, I am far better qualified to decide
what is good for the world as a whole than the users are, who are
mainly just bogged down in rivalries.
 
> This is why most dues-paying members-only clubs have procedures to
> appeal to suspension and expulsion.

But MUDs aren't clubs. They aren't run by the users. They're a
commercial service provided by someone else, for your pleasure.
 
> Maybe, maybe not. What if you defined it as 'disruptive conduct
> which significantly diminishes entertainment value of the product'
> ? A simple vote from a (semi?)representative group could clear up
> if it is disruptive or not.

Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. To most players,
disruptive means "disruptive AND in a different faction than me." 
They generally cannot separate themselves from their prejudices
gained through playing the game. Administrators, particularly in a
commercial environment, have a do-or-die reason to make as many
customers as happy as possible.

> Ofcourse, you should never try to name specific misdeeds. That's
> not very effective, since you simply don't know all of them. But
> the way it's set up now, is that it is all decided at your sole
> discretion, with no notification, and no appeal procedure (not any
> -mandatory- ones, don't know if you or Mythic or whoever do it
> anyway). That doesn't sound like you're willing to take a stand
> for your every decision, regardless of if you actually are willing
> to or not.

I'm NOT willing to take a stand or defend every decision. Do you
know how many decisions we make every day? The users would have to
pay a -lot- more money to support the people and time needed to do
that.
 
> You -can-, however, describe the negative impact you are trying to
> avoid pretty accurately, so you could define that instead of
> leaving all your actions unjustified. It doesn't seem to hinder
> what is normally done to keep a game clean, to specify how you
> keep it clean.

We could, yes, but it still boils down to the same thing: We decide.

> You're talking to the wrong man -- I live in a country where those
> negotiable affection providers even have a union :) I'm not sure
> that such distinctions exist in dutch law. Ofcourse, IANAL, so I
> don't know if there might be some dutch law to spite me after all.

Chuckle, fair enough. You know what I mean though.
 
> My whole point is, that it isn't quite decent to assume your right
> to watch your players even outside your game. Yes it's your turf,
> yes you can refuse entry to anyone, no you can't follow people
> around and check if they're being good little players.

Well, I don't personally watch our players outside the
game. However, if something they were doing outside the game was
affecting Achaea, I'd be interested in it, and would seek to learn
about it.

--matt

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