[MUD-Dev] Social Networks

[Marian Griffith]

In <URL:/archives/meow?group+local.muddev> on Wed 28 Aug, Paul Schwanz wrote:

>   "No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal,
>   casual enforcement of it has broken down. --Jane Jacobs"

As can be witnessed by the huge prison populations the 'war on
drugs' has caused for little to no appreciable effect on drugs
abuse. Or any other behaviour that is deemed unacceptable by
lawmakers while the sentiment is not shared by the majority of
people affected by these laws.

> Is this more a statement about the competency of police forces or
> about the apathy of communities?

Neither I would say.  Suppression however ruthless will never
completely suppress unwanted behaviour if it is not felt to be
unwanted. (I will ignore the other reason, necessity, for that does
not apply to a mud).

> If the community is apathetic to crime, then I'd agree that no
> implementation of access control will be successful.  But it seems
> to me that MMORPG players are crying out for risk management, more
> security, and less victimization.

With the problem being that the available tools are not particularly
effective against the criminals (on a mud that is). The threat of
being attacked does not deter a player who considers fighting
another players the highest form of entertainment available.
Refusal of access is ineffective as there are too many ways players
can obtain new identities. It really boils down to the tailor's
dilemma.

>   "There are numerous problems with applying these ideas to a
>   game: - Encouraging that level of socialization amongst players
>   who may just be focused on their own tasks and happy to ignore
>   everything around them. --Bruce Mitchener"

> Yep.  But this is exacerbated by designs that basically create
> massively single-player online games.  Sometimes the concept that
> players can focus on their own tasks while happily ignoring
> everything around them is offered up as a selling point. (!!)

That may be so, but then you should not complain if those non-social
games spur anti-social behaviour in some of the players.  If you are
not made to see other players as people then there will be some who
are unable to, for whatever reason, and start treating them as other
monsters in the game instead.

>   - As an example of how this might work in a persistent world,
>   imagine that a number of citizens portion off a section of
>   unused 'land' in the game, create a park and are then able to
>   trip a flag that makes the confines of park and some portion of
>   the surrounding area incapable of player-versus-player (PvP)
>   combat. One or more players might donate buffed-out NPC guards
>   to patrol the park and keep the player-killers from hanging at
>   the edges of the PvP zone to attack those entering or
>   leaving. --Jessica Mulligan"

> Why restrict the freedoms of the trusted along with the stranger?

Why restricting the rights of the trusted for those of the
strangers?

> While I certainly wouldn't want to deny communities the ability to
> set up a non PvP area, my personal opinion is that PvP without
> victimization is perfectly acceptable.

This is, as you already put it, *your* opinion.  It is as valid as
mine, or anybody else's.  Everybody has different tastes and you can
not hold up one as the universal truth.  Unfortunately it seems that
as a game designer nowadays you must, to cope with an influx of
players with vastly different backgrounds, expectations and
interests.

> I would like to make a distinction between those characters the
> community has trusted not to victimize and those who have not yet
> earned that trust.  Then I can set up restrictions that will
> pertain only to strangers in addition to those that might pertain
> to everyone.

The idea is, I think, to give groups of players the ability to set
up their own rules and to enforce them. If you want a city where you
can not attack, or even harm, another player regardless, then you
are as far as I am concerned, free to do so.  Just the same as if
you want a city where citizens can attack each others but strangers
can not.  Or if you want a free-for-all city where players can do
whatever they want to each other.  But if these things are all
allowed on the same game, then I think everybody has the right to
expect that their laws are enforced in their own city.  The
free-for-allers must not be able to invade safe cities and wreak
havoc, all in the name of (their) fun of course. And the reverse
should not be possible either.  I have no idea if this is possible,
but I have come to the conclusion that if there is a chance, it is
indeed based on the medieval city, where a wall keeps out those who
are unwanted and the only way to get entrance is by being invited by
a citizen. Trouble makers in whatever way or form can find
themselves expelled by the city council and will end up at the
border, unable to get back in.  Note also that when I speak of city,
I do mean a much larger area, as there should be more to a safe game
than a city area where you can't be attacked (like cities on UO),
but where you are fair game as soon as you leave the city to do
anything interesting (and necessary to be able to actually play the
game as intended). However, this requires a game world vastly more
expansive than what is available today.


Marian
--
Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
will there be loneliness ...

Rolan Choosing Talia,
Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey


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