[MUD-Dev] To Kill an Avatar

[David Kennerly]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:27:34 +0100 "Ren Reynolds" wrote:

> I think there is a fairly strong analogy between code and civil
> law.  Lessig's point, as I understand it, is that code like civil
> law is a form of control i.e. a limit on the scope of free action.

I'm not familiar with Lessig or any study of law, except as was
mentioned in the article.  I appreciate this additional information.

The article used Lessig, properly or improperly, to imply that
programmer-created specifications which define the states a machine
may have are analogously equatable to legislator-created
specifications which empower law-enforcement agents and judicial
agents.  The computational machine has no level of human-persuasion
once the code is in execution, except that defined by the execution
such as user input.  Let me clarify with an example.  If a developer
programs a town to have no player-killing, he has not done the
analogy to a law-maker posting to the lawbooks that murder shall be
forbidden, even if that law-maker is the programmer or producer
himself.  Regardless of the particulars, the developer's
implementation prevents the killing of a player, despite the most
irrational intentions of any other player.  Whereas, the law-maker
has not altered the choices of the player at all.  He has created
socially-sanctioned retaliations on the player for his activity.
That is a very big difference.  Suppose in game A, PK is OFF,
completely and loophole-secure.  Suppose in game B, PK is ON, but
prohibited by the game service providers.  In game A, a player P
attempts to kill a player Q.  He fails.  The same player P in game
B, succeeds in killing a player Q.  Any action to the extent of
enforcement may be taken against player P, but that does nothing to
alter the event of player Q's death.  It is in matters such as this
that I have considered, designed, coded, and administrated upon many
times that leads me to conclude that computer code fails to resemble
legislation, policy, or other rules.  Within rules, disobedience is
possible even though it is not permitted.  Within definition of the
state machine (code), the disobedience is, assuming it is possible
to code, impossible.

The example could even be streamlined down to a single menu.  There
could, for the sake of thought experiment, be a game consisting of a
single menu:

   1) Attack Player Q.
   2) Talk to Player Q.
   3) Attack mob.
   4) Sell loot.

The programmer may eliminate option "1) Attack Player Q." It simply
would not be an option.  The player's universe of options shrank
from 4 options to 3 options.  But when a policy maker, including the
programmer or the producer herself, declares "1) Attack Player Q."
will be made illegal under conditions R, the two systems are very
different, and have very different customer complaint ratios, costs,
player satisfaction results and most basically, different amounts of
player-killing. One has none.  The other none or some. One by lack
of option. The other by player self-restraint from choosing option
"1) Attack Player Q."

This player-killing example is intended to show the principle
differences, so it sets aside the implementation problems of
programming protection from each form that can be construed as
player-killing.  Certainly it is tough to fully exclude all forms of
player-killing.  One could even use "friendly" effects, like healing
to kill another. GMs know this all too well.  But supposing it
possible, and there are very good examples of it being done before.
I personally have witnessed the programming of almost completely
PK-free environments in the MMORPGs that I've administrated.  I'm
also not discussing the relative merits of programming PK_ON or
PK_OFF, and how.  It's a cool topic, but it's a separate topic and
there's already plenty of intelligent discussion in MUD-Dev's
archives to refer to.

> But this might be what you meant with the shop analogy as there
> are different shops that appeal do different people and ones that
> have different levels of service at different costs.

To clarify, Yes.

> However I think that the argument is extending further than
> this. If you have a shop then within the shop you cannot have just
> the laws that you want. You have to follow laws of contract, heath
> and safety etc etc. I think this type of argument is extending
> more into virtual worlds. One are, and one that I study, is the
> whole avatar value thing.

This is where the analogy of a "virtual world" crumbles. There are
few health and safety concerns to an MMORPG except those of the
hardware, software, and general consensus of communication. There is
no concern of maximum seating allowance, minimum number of
lavatories per patron, minimum number of fire exits, wheelchair
ramps, maximum decibels allowed, noise pollution, shirts and shoes
required, washing your hands after every trip to the lavatory,
operating heavy machinery while intoxicated, tying a piece knot on
your sword, unloading and removing the firing mechanism from a
firearm before entering the premise, etc., etc.

There could be, but only if a developer were to program that
feature.  And, just as important, if someone were to enjoy the
product of her labor.  That is, a player would have to enjoy this
realism.  Or, in another product, it may be a simulation, but that's
not what the author or I would be talking about.  Although, that's
where I would clearly agree that a virtual world analogy is
consistent.  MMORPGs are, as a set, generally real world features
minus all that boring crap that we do in the real world only because
we'd disease or otherwise permanently impair our quality of life
from neglect of said precautions.

> copies of the text. Moreover if encryption is used, then (if you
> are in the US) under the DMCA it is a serious offence to try to
> crack the encryption even if you are trying to do something
> e.g. copy the text, that you have (or had - the wider concern
> being that more and more is being excluded from the commons
> through this type of process) rights to do. Here we have an
> example of code limiting a pre-existing freedom and civil law
> backing up that restraint, but the code is contingent, it did not
> have to exist, it did not have to exist in the form that it does
> etc, here code really does seem to be law.

I'm not sure I understand.  The way it sounds to me is that the
copy-protection code is a computational machine (as all code may be
called) that is helping secure the original intellectual property
from intellectual theft.  Somewhat analogous to a physical lock on a
physical door to protect from physical property theft.  The lock is
an example of a mechanical device that limits pre-existing
freedom. The physical lock on the door does not seem to be law.
Does it?

I see the fine point that the copy-protection code itself is
actually protecting something that is legally free to copy, or was
legally free to copy until the copy-protection code was applied.
This procedure, again, though is not unlike a physical lock on
physical property.  Even if the property is a rock that was freely
available until it was placed inside a locked container, then I'm
not sure in what manner that the lock is like the law.  I enjoy the
exercise, but I have to include that I've never had to split hairs
this finely during the operation of an MMORPG.  What benefit does a
developer gain from this adopting the hypothesis of code as law?
Once he proceeds down this path, how does he avoid the pitfalls and
folly I hinted at above?  How would a programmer, who is already
invested in the generation of code, avoid an end that Woody Allen
joked about, which went something along the line of "Psychiatry and
legislation are the only two professions devoted entirely to the
generation of paperwork."

> I now think that there is enough evidence from the likes of E
> Castronova to support the idea that external economic value is a
> consequence of these structures. By virtue of this it seems that
> there are an emerging set of duties that MMORPG creator have in
> respect of this value.

I am curious about the specific duties that you propose.  I
personally have always felt the highest level of duty to the items,
character, and all other aspects of the player experience.  I would
satisfy or at least explain the overruling limitation that prevented
me from satisfying the highest standard of any my employer's
customers.  I applied it to complaints of items as well as anything
else.  In doing so, I often optimized my service by preventing via
the code the customer service complaint that might have arisen, such
as providing clearer warning dialogs, limiting player mobility to
certain dangerous locations under extremely dangerous circumstances.

> By virtue of this it seems that there are an emerging set of
> duties that MMORPG creator have in respect of this value.

> Now I'm not sure what these duties are, however I sure that they
> will apply irrespective of what the MMORPGs creators happen to
> think about it.

When you are sure what these duties are, developers are curious;
especially those of us who already have a good set of duties.  As
evidenced by the several personal praises of our customers in
response to our execution of said duties.

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