[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited

[Norman Short]

From: "Fred Clift" <fred at clift.org>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Norman Short wrote:

>> I just came across this thread, since I've been too busy to read
>> everything the list has been sending lately. But frankly I'm
>> amazed.  I think you game company people have your head in the
>> clouds ignoring reality.

> Oh, you mean game companies don't own the servers that their
> players play on?  You mean that a game company doesn't have the
> right to say what can and can't be done with accounts on their
> servers?  I'd say you were the one who isn't seeing reality.

Sure, you own the servers.  You have the right to determine if
accounts are doing what you want them to do and remove them if you
want.  That's reality, but this isn't the totality of the argument.
Also, part of what I was saying was that in the real world things
can happen that you don't like but have no control over.  Go ahead;
police the entire internet, I dare you :).

>> Intuitively these policies sound downright anti-American, and
>> anti business.

> I repeat - can you tell a game company what to do with their
> property?  Note that in this case it _seems_ that having a monthly
> account with the game company is a contract for some type of
> service.  Are you implying that a company wanting to write a
> contract that lets them keep some control over their own property
> is unamerican or anti-business?  I suggest that the opposite is
> true.

Some control?  You guys have already said you want the ability to
read people's minds and intent and apply it to corporate policy.
You're saying you can control the actions and speech of people who
aren't connected to your service.  You're saying an enterprising
young person can't make trades offline even though the game
mechanics are set up to allow you to make them online.  The actions
in game are identical to the actions of the other players.  So you
want to read minds and intimidate those who actually say they don't
agree with your interpretation ofyour rights.  You guys have gone
way past "some control".  I see this as little different than
deciding what type of person you want playing your game; you can
feel free to cancel accounts for someone being gay, for example,
which in most states wouldn't be covered by anti-discrimination law.
I see little difference when you say you can judge the minds and
intent of the people performing an action in game from what they do
outside of it.  You guys want god-like powers over your game world,
and in the real world you're dreaming.

>> You absolutely don't have the right to tell players who they can
>> talk to and what they can do when they are not connected to the
>> service.

> This case isn't about that -- it about transfering a contract for
> service from one person to another.  Non-transferrable contracts
> happen all the time.

You can change the subject to one in which you feel more
comfortable.  In fact, you are trying to say what people can say and
do outside the service.

>> I could go into all the legal niceties, but lets just live in the
>> real world for a bit, shall we?  The internet is unpoliceable.
>> You have zero ability to stop people from contacting each other
>> and

> Just because something is difficult or near impossible does not
> mean it is a) illegal or b) something you should ignore.

Ok, lets just say it's illegal, which I'm not convinced of and
nobody has had the guts to test in court.  Let's even give you it's
something you shouldn't ignore.  Now where are you?  An unpoliceable
internet, and you're trying to enforce the speech and actions
outside the game since you can't tell whether the actual
transactions in game are based on out-of-game speech or a regular
one.  Even if I give you everything you think you have in the way of
legal rights, you're still screwed in the real world.  Find a
business plan that doesn't flaunt the abilities of people to speak
to each other outside the game.  Find a plan that doesn't deny
players doing what they want and you, in your god-like status of
head of the MUD, have decided they don't deserve.  I just think you
guys have gotten delusions of grandeur.

>> suggest you start 1000 court proceedings immediately instead.

> No legal matters need to be started, but the contract can be
> cancelled if the customer does not keep his end of the deal.

Yup.  Feel free to cancel the account.  You have that power, I said
that.  Now determine the minds and speech outside game of all your
players, and cancel the accounts of those who don't pass your
virtual mind reader.


>> I don't buy the "they'd have stayed longer if you didn't sell
>> them an item" line.

> I dont think people have been saying that an individual player
> would stay longer if they didn't purchase an item from someone
> like BSI -- I think the claims have been that the company looses
> revenue when such things happen.  Personally, I'd get frustrated
> and leave a game if I saw _other people_ buying stuff like this
> when it was stated that it wasn't allowed.  (Well, if the game
> were designed up front to encourage that kind of thing, or if say,
> it were an expected part of the game to keep buying stuff - think
> collectable card games...).  I would think that the buyers would
> actually stay longer if they could buy uber-gear, but I would also
> think that this would drive away other players.  Or, perhaps it
> would keep people from buying more accounts when they wanted to
> play a different character.

No fair changing the arguments in mid-stream--this is exactly what
Jessica Mulligan stated as a legal reason to stop people from
talking about trades outside game.  In fact that is what you are
doing, since you have no way to know if money changed hands.  Seems
like in this instance you agree with me.  If the game sold items to
players then they could charge loss of trade from these outside
transactions, but the ones that don't aren't seeking business
profits from any of the player to player trades.

>> acquire it.  You're like the studio industry when the VCR came
>> about; trying to close legal loopholes and stop people from doing
>> what they want and claiming the practice costs you money.

> No, I'd say game companies are more like cable-TV operators that
> thrive on keeping monthly-subscriptions comming in.  The game
> companies provide a service, not a piece of hardware.  You can buy
> all the $40 boxes you want at the local computer store -- if they
> shut down their servers or if you just decided not to pay money
> for a service contract with them, you would have nowhere to play
> the game.

You haven't shown that you lose monthly subscriptions due to this
practice, and in fact evidence can be shown to say that you actually
gain longer subscriptions and longer playtime.  You just changed
sides in the argument from above.  Now all of a sudden these
transactions do cost you accounts; above you said the opposite.  I
stand by my analogy.  The internet has allowed people to do new
things with your game, and you're running from it.  Just like the
studios ran from the VCR, the cassette tape deck, and the internet
now.  I maintain that you are actually losing money by not embracing
these dynamics that players want.  Sell the items yourself, just as
Matt Mihaly does, and your revenue will increase by leaps and
bounds.  Try to stuff the genie back in the bottle and come off as
whiners with million dollar corporate backing.  Maybe you too could
buy off a Senator and write the bill to make all of this illegal,
then you wont have to test it in court.  Well, you probably would
still get appeals.

>> the Grail in that you can make more money by selling the items
>> yourself instead of just letting players fill the vacuum in
>> providing a service they want and you wont provide.

> Now wether this is a good business practice or not, I dont know -
> I dont know the particulars.  Even then, something being a 'bad
> business practice' doesn't make it illegal or unamerican.

Hindering people with using their time to make a buck, sounds
unAmerican to me.  It's like you threw a bottle on the road and get
mad that somebody picked it up and got a deposit for it.  You guys
weren't looking to make a buck with that item, but you're mad
somebody else did.

>> service, you're still losers.  Plug a hole here, a dozen spout up
>> somewhere else.  You're just trying to prevent players from doing
>> something they can easily do and want to do.  Lets not forget
>> you've never tried to assert these rights in court.  My guess is
>> you're afraid to; afraid that the results might give players a
>> right or two you'd like to deny them.

> Wait a minute -- looks like you are "judging 'our' intent" which
> you said was a job for the courts, not for mortals in the gamming
> industry.

Heh, nice comeback Unfortunately the list has stated its intent
explicitly on the thread.  I may not be able to wave a magic wand
and determine intent or guilt, but if I have a confession in hand I
can judge it.

>> The longer I see you guys trying to artificially stunt the
>> players, try to make their advancement a slow creep in search of
>> dollars, the less interested I get in playing these games.  And
>> no, I've never been a seller or buyer of the online stuff.  I
>> just think you folks are way too full of yourselves.

> Well, I guess you aren't talking about me, since the game I work
> on is free.  The game does not make us money in any way. In our
> game, if you sold a character to some fool, I wouldn't have much
> of a problem with it.  However if you sold some equipment for real
> money, you'd probably get some sort of administrative punishment
> for not role-playing correctly.  Using Out-Of-Character means to
> gain some In-Character advantage is bad form and officially
> 'frowned upon'.  I mean, what possible IC motivation could a
> character in the world have to just seemingly give away valuable
> things?

He's a philanthropist, or has gone mad, or has had an epiphany and
decides to eschew material possessions.  Easy to come up with an IC
reason, though that isn't the argument.

Nice to see everyone isn't in a corporate pocket.  Of course I knew
that, but not in your case.

> Oh, and if you do have a character in the world I work on, and we
> decide to just rmeove it or delete it, you dont have any rights
> that would prevet us doing this..  Note that we do not arbitrarily
> do things like that.  However, when we delete someone's character
> for cheating, or effectively banish them via some sort of ban,
> those people have no recompense.  In general, they knew what they
> were doing was against the rules and knew what the likley
> punishment would be.  We own the server, we pay for network
> access, we own the content of the world, every bit of it.  If you
> can't abide by the rules of the world we run, then you are welcome
> to a full refund of $0 and welcome to leave.

I agree here.  You can cancel the accounts of those who sell items,
simply because you can cancel accounts for any reason at all.  This
doesn't effect the actual transaction you are trying to prevent.
You want to be able to *not* cancel the account and still prevent
the behavior.  I don't believe you can do that.

> Aparently the real world that most of us are living in is
> different from your hypothetical real world.

And I'll keep my world-view that you guys are the ones in
Fantasyland.  Which of us is right?  Let's talk in 5 years.

Norman Short


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