[MUD-Dev] Korea and online world responsibility

[Rudy Fink]

Koster, Raph wrote:
> From: apollyon
>> From: "Sean Kelly" <sean at ffwd.cx>

>>> So it appears the fear is spreading.  But is this any different
>>> from the attribution of games like DOOM to events like the
>>> Columbine shootings? Are the producers of potentially addictive
>>> products responsible for aiding in the control of that
>>> addiction?  And could all these problems just be solved by
>>> better parenting?

>> From what I understand, the connection is a little less tenuous
>> than the connection to the Columbine shootings.  When Character A
>> kills Character B, prompting Player B to stand up from his chair
>> in a Korean internet cafe, walk across the room pulling out a
>> knife, and stab Player A, it's much easier for the media to lay
>> blame clearly upon the game itself, whether or not that blame
>> truly belongs.

> I have heard from two different sources now that the real reason
> that the Korean government is cracking down isn't so much the 700
> incidents of game-related violence that have allegedly been
> documented, as it is the apparently equally numerous cases of
> young women selling real-world sexual favors in exchange for
> in-game items.

> To be frank, it somewhat depresses me that given the supposedly
> egalitarian environment that virtual spaces can provide, that the
> mechanics that we provide serve to reinforce some of the crudest
> expressions of humanity.  Design a feudal world, get oppressive
> behavior? Design a caste-based world, get prostitution. Not
> surprising, I guess. But to me it does hearken back to the fact
> that *players do what we reward them to do.* To abdicate
> responsibility for that seems foolish--no, actually, it seems
> amoral.

Despite the elemental state of being virtual; muds are increasingly
worlds.  We are who we are, and the things that are inately us will
follow wherever we go.  It is improbable that this would not apply
to our games or that human history, psychology, and sociology won't
follow along too.  As online world "games" become bigger, more
involved, and popular, the stakes for success in-world to the player
can only get higher.  I would hope that illegal and undesired
activity could eliminated with intelligence and device, but
honestly, I think that is folly.  As the game becomes more a part of
life, life will do its best to improve the place in the game.  If in
game success is socially or psychologically important to a real
degree, then its attainment will be motivated.

Creation of online worlds with millions to tens of millions of
players is by no means unforseeable.  It is generally the desire and
pride of the creator to make well.  In our case, good worlds will
almost by definition ensnare the mind, imagination, and efforts of
the player. People will want to play, want to succeeded, and want to
be involved. Players will _love_ the game.  Most "good" designs will
probably leverage social nature and involvement.  Success will
require friends, groups, and guilds.  Society in the game will love
and need the player.

Where does this leave the creator?  Is it wrong to produce something
that will have strong effects?  Should creation of a thing (virtual
world in our case) that may consume the population of a small nation
for years be shelved?  What good will something bring?  What are the
downsides?

Creation inevitably has consequences outside of the thing itself.
An easy assay returns countless examples of this: planes,
electricity, telephones, guns, Tolkien, plastic, etc.  I do not need
to elaborate, for almost as many things as one can think of, there
are many sides to its effects and affects.  Invariably, these good
sides also have bad sides.

Where is the morality in creation?  I do not disagree that it is
personal question of the creator, but I think it is equally
important to remember that choice and free will are always involved
on the part of the user.  I hold the creator has no moral obligation
or responsibility to unintended and undesigned use.  I would argue
that otherwise the creator is empowered with a impossible amount of
responsibility and power and creation would almost unavoidably be
amoral, entering then the question if not creating is amoral.

~! Rudy

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