[MUD-Dev] Ethical behavior ... a hijacking.

[Jeff Cole]

From: Matt Mihaly

> I think what John means here is that avatars don't have rights,
> and the idea of them having rights is a bit loony. They are just
> database entries.

I don't really understand the need for a distinction.  I mean beyond
engaging in some semantic argument, what is (are) the substantive
distinction(s)?  I have no problem referring to avatars instead of
players or vice-versa.  For what reason, though, is it necessary for
me to use one or the other?

To make a distinction seems to imply that the separate avatars of
one player might be entitled to different sets of "rights."

> I think what he's saying is that the conventional view is that
> only living things (or only people, depending on how broad-minded
> someone is) have rights, and that these rights aren't changed or
> altered by the circumstance of playing a game. They just need to
> be interpreted in that light.

Yes and no.  To play a game, you subscribe to the applicable set of
rules.  I have the "right" to move my knight however I please, as a
queen if I so choose.  However, if I insist on playing that way,
very few, if any, players will play chess with me.

Now, you can fall back on your last sentence and say that the rules
are just rights "interpreted in [the] light" of the game of chess,
but then any restrictions on the "rights" can collapse into that
concept.

>> You have the greatest right of all: the right not to play.  To
>> the extent that you play, you are subject to the rights that the
>> designers/developers afford you.

> Well I certainly agree with you, but sadly, when it comes to the
> law, might makes right, and the government has the might. I would
> say the same thing you just said about drugs: You have the right
> not to use them. The use of them is, nontheless, HEAVILY regulated
> obviously.

I really don't understand your analogy.  I s'pose were I arguing
that I did not like the set of rules that my dealer put forth with
respect to my ability to obtain and otherwise indulge in the use of
drugs and that I was subject to some sort of junkie's rights, then
your analogy would be applicable.

I can restate what I said with respect to drugs:

   You have the greatest right of all: the right not to [do drugs].
   To the extent that you [do drugs], you are subject to the rights
   that the [law] afford[s] you.

Of course by "rights" in both I certainly mean(t) the parenthetical
"or lack thereof."  PErhaps a better word would've been "rules."
Either way, it doesn't change the substance of my argument.

> John doesn't feel that players are intelligent enough or have
> enough willpower to limit their playing hours to what he deems is
> reasonable.

Well, my point was that in the very post in which he calls for
player's rights, he talks about knowing what is best for players.
Hmmmm ... seems like "knowing what is best for players" could be
used to trample quite a few "rights."

> In some cases, he's probably right, but that's their problem, not
> mine as a developer/administrator.
...
> but John feels, I think, that addiction should be the
> developer/administrator's responsibility rather than the players'
> (or at least partially the developer/administrator's
> responsibility).  >

So, then, it's less about player's rights and more about developer's
responsibilities? Ack!

Yrs. Affcty,
Jeff Cole


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