[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited

[Matt Mihaly]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, ghovs wrote:

> What if a game were to have people roaming around the real world
> trying to find non-complying players? Isn't this a pretty
> far-reaching method of ensuring the safety and stability of a
> game?

Some games do. We do, for instance. It is definitely
far-reaching. Good for us. *pats himself on the back*
 
> For me, I'm just trying to see where the line is, what it is that
> a company may own, after all the work is done, and ongoing. I'm
> also wondering how much a MMORPG can set conditions for being in
> the game. I highly doubt if a game is allowed to decide to ban you
> because of what you do outside it. How would you feel if your
> favorite bar would deny you entry because you have done something
> they don't like outside it, while you do not, inside the bar, act
> differently from any other patron?

"After all the work is done." Since it's a service, the work is
never done. Quite literally.

And your favorite bar CAN kick you out for something you've done
outside. In fact, they can kick you out for any reason at all,
except for certain protected categories of reasons, such as race and
gender.

> While I do agree that professional farmers are a nuisance, you
> need a firm legal basis to kick them out on, not just resentment
> and a LART-wish. That, or simply reserve the right to kick out
> anyone for any reason at all, which strikes me as user-hostile.

They do reserve that right, I believe. It's not user-hostile
either. It's disruptive-user-hostile. It's simple really: The users
are endlessly inventive at coming up with asinine behavior
patterns. You're never going to be able to strictly define all
behavior that you want banned, because you're in the business of
making games, not writing expansive legal codes. I'm not going to
let someone get away with some outrageous harrassment of one of my
good users just because he found a loophole in some legalistic
rules. As our PK rule #10 states: The Admins are not stupid, and
attempts to find 'loopholes' in the rules will not work.
 
> One could even stretch further to this side, claiming that BSI is
> creating a market catering to lazy bastards, thus -increasing-
> revenue.

There's no doubt some truth to this, though I think these arguments
miss the point. Just the other day, someone told me that he would
have quit Everquest had he not been able to spend $300 on 10,000
platinum when he started out, to avoid some of the hassles of being
low level.
 
> So, the intent to perform an action inside the space of someone
> else, which is -not- an action uncommon to that space (this
> obviously does not count for character transfers), in exchange for
> money which does not change hands inside that space, that intent
> is a legal basis for that someone to forbid that action in their
> space?

It's legal to have sex. It's illegal for money to change hands for
that sex. It's legal for you to volunteer for me. It's illegal for
you to volunteer for me and for me to pay you $3/day in
return. Those are just analogies of course, but my point is that
there are legal distinctions made sometimes, based on whether or not
money changes hands.
 
--matt

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