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

[Matt Mihaly]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jeff Cole wrote:
> 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?

You have to ask? If you had an avatar in Achaea, I could change you
into a woman with one command. I certainly can't do that to you the
player.

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

No, all avatars are entitled to the same amount of rights, which is
to say, none at all. I can't see this changing.
 
>> 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.

I have no idea what you're saying here. Rules and rights aren't the
same thing. Rights either tell you what you have the right to do, or
what you have the right to be free from. Rules define how something
works. Law is rule, for instance, and in most of the West at least,
theoretically based on rights.
 
In the US, you'll find that the Constitution never mentions any
exceptions that are based on playing a game. Your rights under the
Constitution don't change when you're playing a game, according to
the Constitution.

>> 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.

Yes. My point is that the law trumps the games companies. Yes, you
can simply not play if you don't like the EULA. Similarly, you can
simply not buy drugs. However, the fact that you can make those
choices isn't going to stop the government from regulating the games
companies if it chooses to. It doesn't matter if the EULA says that
you have to sign away your first-born, for instance. It might say
that, and you might say "Simply don't play then." but what would
actually happen is that I could freely play, and certainly never
have to give up my first-born.

The fact that you can make the choice not to play doesn't, in any
way, give the games companies the ability to deprive their players
of their rights, as your rights haven't actually
changed. Personally, I'm not a fan of this state of affairs, but
that's not really relevant.

>> 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."

Grin, welcome to political science 101. Consider that the
government/administration that claims to "know what is best for
people/players" may be honestly well-intentioned, or may be absolute
monters using that to oppress the people. Consider that there have
been a lot of leaders throughout history that did some really nasty
things on really large scales, but with the best of intentions.

Consider that no one agrees on what rights are, where rights come
from, or even whether rights are anything more than a fevered
figment of the imagination, much less what rights people actually
have, if any.

Personally, I don't even believe in any sort of objective "right". I
don't believe in human rights, etc. I do believe in rights under the
Constitution in the sense that you have a right, under the
Constitution, because it says you do. It means nothing without
people willing and able to enforce it (power is inevitably in the
barrel of a gun).

In terms of a document on the Rights of Avatars, or, more sensibly,
a Rights of Players in Virtual Worlds, it too would mean nothing. In
fact, it does mean nothing, as I believe Raph did put that document
out there. It means nothing because it was mainly ignored (no
offence) and no one is going to punish anyone who doesn't subscribe
to it.
 
>> 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!

Well, depending on what kind of right it is, it inherently involves
responsibility on some other entity's part. The developer is the
logical one in this case. For instance, if I claim that I have the
right to helpful administration (a positive right, ie a right TO
something), then I to clarify who I have that right in respect to,
or it is a meaningless statement. If I have claim the right to
helpful administration from the game administrators, then by
claiming that right, I also impose a responsibility upon them.

In terms of negative rights (the right to be free from something),
the people you'd have the rights in respsect to are those who would
potentially violate that right by their actions. For instance, if I
have the right to be free of sexual harrassment, then if Bob comes
around and sexually harrasses me, Bob is violating my right, not the
developers. However, some people might claim the right to an
administration that works to reduce violations of my negative
rights, in which case the administration get stuck holding the ball
again.

--matt




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