Immortal Attitudes to Players
REMOVETHIS
After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
question.
If you are a major MUD/MUSH/Whatever person (ie: you code large
amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
charge,please answer the following
1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
direction the game eventually takes?
3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
intellectual/physical property?
4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
any analysis of options?
Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
on the above questions.
Thanks,
Cylaria, dissappointed TFE player that hopes it returns under new
management.
Orjan Stromberg
> <REMOVETHI...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
> social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Let's see.. The right to leave if they disagree with my decisions. The
right to play as long as they are not cheating, or otherwise trying to
walk past the rules and guidelines I have set up. The right to defend
any accusations that may be directed at them. The right to complain if
they think they are unfairly treated.
Actually, those are not general rights I think every player should
always have. It's rights that I give to my players at the moment.
Social rights players have to enforce on their own, within the game,
as long as it is IC, what with being a roleplaying mud and such.
> 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
> direction the game eventually takes?
They most certainly don't. They can suggest, demand, complain,
whatever they want. I listen to suggestions, ignore demands and judge
complaints, but then will do exactly whatever I please after that
evaluation. I don't run my mud for the benefits of the players, I run
it for the benefits of myself. If I didn't, I would likely have shut
down ages ago. Enjoying myself is my only protection against whining
players, horrible crashes and the occasional boredom.
You can't make a game that caters to everyone, as has been stated
times aplenty in this group, so I settle for making a game that caters
to myself, to be sure that I please one person, at least.
> 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
> intellectual/physical property?
Of course it is. I got my copy of the game-engine from a mud I played
before, and on the condition that I didn't use anything but the most
basic parts of the world, had complete ownership transferred. Since
then I have rewritten just about all parts at least two or three
times, until it now is solely my own creation. Who else should own it?
> 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
> you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
I have not yet had to do any such. There have been some major changes
that had no greater impact on the players, and those were just
announced as they were implemented. I am planning on a complete
rewrite of the world, after which everyone will be demoted to the
lowest level again, which will be announced, perhaps a month or so in
advance. Recently I was on the verge of shutting down, an action that
I discussed with my immortal staff. If I had come to the conclusion
that shutting down was the best alternative, obviously the other
immortals would have known. The players would have had at most a week
to get used to the idea, if even that. After all, what difference does
it make if you notice a game is down, or if you find out that it will
in a week? You can arrange for people to meet up somewhere else, but
who doesn't already play more than one mud?
> 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
> any analysis of options?
Analysis is important, especially since I sometimes tend to be
impulsive and I know it. Thus I never take any major decisions on the
spot, but no more than a week should be needed to verify all available
options and decide which is the most attractive.
> Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
> closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
> be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
> term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
> information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
> being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
> type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
> on the above questions.
If I knew I wouldn't be able to continue running my mud, I would look
around for suitable people to replace me. People with my values and
who share my beliefs and ideas. If I couldn't find such a person, I
would rather shut down completely. Perhaps you don't understand, but
some (most?) of us admins really, REALLY feel for our games. It is
somewhat like a baby to me, and not something I am prepared to just
hand over to anyone. I have to be sure they won't carry the kid around
in his/her feet, swinging him/her around their head just because they
CAN.
Sure, it's not too nice to just shut down, especially not without a
notice. But that's the way life goes, and sometimes it is the
only/best alternative.
/Orjan
PS. Note that I am generalising, and nothing of the above is meant
directly for the incident that apparently sparked this post.
--
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Southern DOS: Y'all reckon? (Yep/Nope)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mats H. Carlberg
>
> Hi,
>
> After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
> recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
> question.
There's a piece in the LPMUD FAQ that applies to this.
In short, the people in control can do whatever they see fit.
yes, life is a bitch.
--
Mats H. Carlberg MSc., Tech. Lic.
http://www.ifm.liu.se/~macar
- Signatures can contain viruses! Spread the word!
Serhat Sakarya
: After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
: recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
: question.
[snip]
: 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
: social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Dunno. What kind of rights do you suggest?
: 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
: direction the game eventually takes?
Yes. Since players spend a lot of time on the mud, it would be kind of
fair to let them have a say in the direction of the mud. Since the admin
is interested in keeping players happy / getting more players, this is
kind of a good idea. However, it's almost impossible to keep _all_ people
happy all the time.
: 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
: intellectual/physical property?
No. Personally, I prefer to work on the more basic and low level stuff.
I tend to leave areas and other 'fun stuff' to other people. So
essentially they (the coders/builders) also own parts of the mud.
In principle, the players only play the game and don't own anything
unless perhaps you set up your environment in such a way that players can
have a more lasting impact that killing NPCs.
: 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
: you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Month? Two months?
: Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
: closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
: be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
: term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
: information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
: being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
: type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
: on the above questions.
That sucks :-/
It does seem within the rights of the owner, however....
Regards,
Serhat Sakarya
--
If you wish te email me, please replace '[127.0.0.1]' in the 'from'
address with 'freud.et.tudelft.nl'.
Marc Bowden
<rm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Hi,
>After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
>recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
>question.
>
>amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
>(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
>charge,please answer the following
>
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
>
That's going to vary a great deal from system to system. My personal
feeling (and this filters down to my officers) is that a guest is
entitled to basic human considerations: protection from unreasonable
hazards; protection from harassment and stalking, insofar as is practical;
reasonable extensible courtesies.
I'll also lock out sites at the request of parents (which I understand is
an oddity) and will set certain .edu and .k12 sites to be unable to log
in at certain hours of the day - like, say, when the kids should be getting
their education. I have no doubt that the kids involved will consider this
harsh and unfair - but they are children, and someone has to look out for
them.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
>
Only insofar as you give social Darwinism any credit. I would say
instead that it is hard for an individual guest to steer a game in a
given direction, but that a larger group - say, any unified 5% of a
game's player population - will change the social climate and the de-facto
culture in a given direction. That unity is mostly achieved in our systems
by the violent elements, unfortunately, and if not checked by other factors
will cause a downward spiral in the playerbase. Symptoms will include
organized protection rackets, a drop in the number of new players but
an increase in new characters as the old ones recycle, and a feeling
of helplessness and the eventual elimination of any other type of player.
This is most likely in a system that keeps the wizards/officers sequestered
from the player base - they won't see the trend until it is too late, and
then, they won't have the tools or the means to check the spiral.
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
>
Actually no. I think the one I have the pleasure of serving is made
for those who love her, not the other way around.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
>
Depends on whether or not they'll notice it. Most changes are invisible
from the guests' perspective. For great big ones, two weeks is usually
sufficent warning.
Then again, some events won't be announced for dramatic effect. The death
of Alzaar on Astaria (astaria.org 5555) is one such example of a
well-orchestrated but unannounced change to the game structure. For those
of you not familiar with the reference, Alzaar was an NPC mage who would
teleport any guest to and from a castle for a fee. Alzaar died in a dragon
attack that happened on an early Saturday night with little warning.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
>
Varies according to the change.
>Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
>closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
>be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
>term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
>information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
>being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
>type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
>on the above questions.
>
>Thanks,
>Cylaria, dissappointed TFE player that hopes it returns under new
>management.
>
>
S/He does have that right. They don't "owe" you a MUD, which seems to be
a precis of your feelings on the matter. Any game can vanish for any number
of reasons, and you, as a guest, are not going to be consulted on that sort
of decision - or anything of high-level internal interest for that matter.
I'm sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. I can suggest
several alternatives:
Astaria - High Fantasy astaria.org 5555
Dawn of the Immortals - Medium fantasy and high comedy immortal.org 2000
Dreamshadow - Multiple realities dreamer.telmaron.com 3333
========================================================================
Marc Bowden - Soulsinger D R E A M S H A D O W
Human Resources Director --------------------------
The Legacy of the Three
dreamer.telmaron.com 3333 or 209.118.172.5 3333 ry...@merit.edu
"We did not choose to become the guardians, but there is no one else."
========================================================================
Kevin Doherty
>1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
The players have no rights on the mud. Or, rather, none that I give them.
They have the right to leave at any time, but that's just the way the
system works.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
Yes. While I do want the game to be fun, I'm not out to please players.
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
Yup.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Eh, I think the real answer is to try and design your mud at the beginning
enough that sweeping changes aren't necessary. But, if they were (for
instance, a pwipe or something), I would probably try to make it as
painless as possible on the players (as any mistake made would have been
my own and I'd rather not punish them for that).
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
No more or less than I would with anything else.
--
Kevin Doherty, kdoh...@jurai.net
"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind."
-- Rincewind (from _Eric_)
Duke
propose that the players have no 'rights.' If a mud closes, I would say it
may be curteous to give a warning but it should not be expected.
Duke@bat
Aristotle
>Hi,
>
>After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
>recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
>question.
>
>If you are a major MUD/MUSH/Whatever person (ie: you code large
>amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
>(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
>charge,please answer the following
>
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Players do not have the right to "not be sweared at". Players have the right
to logoff and quit the game if they don't like it for any reason.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
Ultimately the player has *NO* say. However, anyone who is not receptive to
input will find itself lacking in players since everyone likes to have input
in any game or project they participate in. Further, as an admin, I find
player input to be INCREDIBLY valuable.
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
Of course it is.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Warning depends on the change.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
Enormous amounts of analysis are CRUCIAL for any major changes.
>Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
>closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
>be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
>term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
>information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
>being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
>type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
>on the above questions.
Well, why should the admin be forced to keep it running if he/she doesn't want
to. Unless you are willing to pay good money for it, you were getting charity
the whole time.
-Aristotle
======================================================================
Threshold - High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
======================================================================
Holly Sommer
> 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
> social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Players do not have "rights" - that is, nothing is guaranteed to them
within the game.
> 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
> direction the game eventually takes?
Players don't have decision-making powers ("say"), but can otherwise
affect the game with feedback and suggestions, sometimes.
> 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
> intellectual/physical property?
Sort of. It doesn't belong to anyone who hasn't worked on the areas
or code, I'll put it that way. Anyone who has worked on our MUD can
have what they've worked on (particularly areas), but will not have
the work of others just handed to them. I suppose that the game as
a whole, if it has to belong to *one* person on the team, probably
"belongs" to me, as I've been with it since Day One, and have been
part of every aspect of the game.
> 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
> you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Well, usually warning isn't necessary, because large changes are
discussed "in front of the morts" for awhile, to get them used to
the idea, beforehand. How long is awhile? Well, no set timeframe -
it usually starts whenever whatever idea warrants enough merit to
be considered worthwhile of action, and it lasts until the idea
is tested and implemented.
> 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
> any analysis of options?
It depends on the scope of the change. One idea has been in discussion
for almost 2 years (not nonstop, but it has been rather carefully gone
over). Some of them come to fruition fairly quickly (religious system's
first stages added within 3 weeks). Analysis takes into account how it
will affect players, builders and game theme/direction. Sometimes, one
of those gets screwed initially, but often, we try to accomodate as
best we can, and make the new idea backwards compatible as far as
possible (b.c. to previous ideas as well as mechanics). To this date,
we have never had a pfile wipe because of code changes.
Ultimately, the admin has the game's plug in his/her hand, and
can pull it at any time, without any warning, for any reason
whatsoever. It's usually a free service, and when it ceases to be
fun for the person running it, that person can either terminate it,
or stage a changing of the guard.
-Holly
Richard Woolcock
>
> Hi,
>
> After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
> recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
> question.
>
> If you are a major MUD/MUSH/Whatever person (ie: you code large
> amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
> (can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
> charge,please answer the following
>
> social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
They have no rights; they are guests in my game, and should play by
my rules. Having said that, many of my rules are designed to try and
create a playable atmosphere.
> 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
> direction the game eventually takes?
That is correct, although most imms (including myself) will listen to
suggestions from the players.
> 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
> intellectual/physical property?
The mud belongs to the coder/s and builders. I own what I have coded,
unless it was specifically for someone elses mud.
> 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
> you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
None, because my mud is still under development. Most of the players
have a fair idea of what sort of things are coming in, however.
> 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
> any analysis of options?
I already know what I want to add, it's just taking a very long time
to implement it all.
> Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
> closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
> be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
> term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
Machine ownership has nothing to do with mud ownership.
> information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
> being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
> type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
> on the above questions.
Do you know *why* it was taken down? I took down the original God Wars
back in 96 because I had finally gotten sick and tired of the attitudes
of the players and site owner. They seemed to forget that the mud was
a privilage and not a right, and took all of the fun out of running the
mud.
KaVir.
Ron Cole
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
The right to leave if they don't like the way things are done. You can give
them more if you want, but that's all they claim on their own.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
Again, as much as you want to give them, they get none by default. One problem
is, most player requests boil down to, "Give *me* more power".
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
This would be up to the Imm staff that has access to the code, but it all boils
down to whoever owns the account running the mud. Its their account, and they
can do with it as they please. I suppose if they shut down and you had access
to everything, you could bring it up somewhere else and nothing could be done
about it without legal fees, which would be more trouble than its worth in most
cases.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Nice, but not necessary. We try to warn them when it has a big impact on them,
and we try to preserve/convert anything reasonable. But if the mud isn't
constantly changing then its not getting any better. Better is in the eye of
the beholder of course.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
Depends on the change, we always try to think everything through and make sure
its a change for the better, for the sake of the game itself, not for the sake
of the players. Again, they tend to think of how things affect them, not how it
affects the game as a whole. Everyone wants a sword of rawkilling, but thats
hardly a good thing for the game itself.
Ron
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos
inquiring about players' rights, admins obligations,
a sense of unfair treatment when TFE went down without
warning, and various and sundry issues thereto related.
This prompted what appears to this observer to be the
only time in memory that so many posts have spoken with
so nearly a single voice. Astonishing.
--
My thanks to you, Cylaria/REMOVETHIS/whatever, for
prompting such amazing unanimity among such an ornery,
nit-picking, stubborn, picayune, arrogant, opinionated,
often brilliant, and generally contrary group.
--
For further consideration I'd throw out this: would
the usual non-pay mud / mush / online roleplaying game
arrangements not be usefully likened to, say, someone
hosting a party? It's the host's home, food, drink,
furniture, etc.; people may help serve, or may help
run games, or may just stand around and enjoy the food
and drink. And they may be unhappy if asked to leave
with (as they see it) inadequate notice. But I expect
that they would little complain of their rights being
trodden down.
Oh, surely the party-giver would engender serious ill
feeling, and have a hard time getting persons to come
to subsequent parties. But likely there would be little
dispute that the party-giver would be within his rights
to stop his own party and kick out the guests when and
how he is pleased to do so.
Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
circumstances substantially.
Cheers,
Ilya
--
Ilya, SCC www.gamecommandos.com Il...@gamecommandos.com
Cyber Angel
REMOVETHIS BITr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote in message
<35b43b95...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>Hi,
>
>After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
>recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
>question.
>
>If you are a major MUD/MUSH/Whatever person (ie: you code large
>amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
>(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
>charge,please answer the following
>
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
>
game is not fun, they do not play. It would be pointless to have a mud with
no players. I guess it depends on the type of mud.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
I decide where the mud will ultimately go, but I am always open to ideas,
since I like for my players to have fun. I also spend quite a bit of money
and time to run the game, and players should expect that in doing so gives
me the right to make those decisions. Again, since it is the ultimate goal
to actually have players enjoy it, I consider almost any idea that is
presented as long as it fits the overall direction I have planned.
>
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
yes, and no. I am providing a site and much of my own time to run the
mud. Any builder who works on the mud may request a copy of their zone.
Any coder may use what he/she coded in another mud, but I also retain rights
to use anything built or coded for my mud.
>
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
>
Yes, I feel the players get a better feeling of the mud if you inform
them. Some they will have no say in, but I still feel it is considerate to
tell them. Sometimes it is not possible to warn them, or I feel it is not
neccessary.. if it offends them.. I'm sory, but tough.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
It depends on the changes and how well I get along with the players :)
>
>Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
>closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
>be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
>term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
>information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
>being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
>type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
>on the above questions.
>
Oh well.. life sucks.. it's a game. Go find another.
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos
>
> In article <6p30fq$qru$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
> Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos <il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> >Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
> >circumstances substantially.
> >
>
> for building a player base is pretty much identical,
> you're just limiting the economic strata you can draw
> from.
> Of course, it depends on what kind of player base
> you're trying to build.
>
I had in mind legal remedies related to provision of
a service, exchange of money for services, agreements related
to the nature of the service to be provided, etc. I've
generally found myself far from without rights amongst those
whom I pay for services.
You are quite right, however, that the social mechanisms
would likely be unchanged.
Still, I would argue that it's not so much a case of
'limiting the economic strata you can draw from' so much
as changing it from one to another. That is, though it's
true that some who can afford to pay well for their online
roleplaying may play free games as well, I have known many
who, because they are able to pay (and definitely enjoy the
differential in attitude, service, etc) would not consider
free games.
Also, the staggeringly large number of subscribers to such
games as Ultima Online and the other numerous play systems
out there may indicate that the number of members of the
'willing to play' strata is substantially _more_ numerous
than the 'play free or die' strata. If so, then 'pay for
play' situations actually increase ones audience rather
than limit it.
I don't know if this is the case or not, though I suspect
it is, and would certainly be interested in some hard
numbers along these lines. I've asked and looked for them
before and none are yet forthcoming (and I've found none).
Pity.
Cheers, friend,
Puck Al'Rakham
Oke, here are my 2cents on the issue at hand:
>1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
They have the right to say what they think and have the right to quit the
game if they don't like the rules. They are, in my point of view, also
entitled to some knowledge on things that will affect the time they will be
able to play. For instance, if the game will be removed or taked off line
for a period of time, I think the players should be informed. But they don't
have the right to claim the game must be open at certain times.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
Actually this is totally up to the coders. I myself code on a few muds and
on most muds, players do have something to say and if they got good ideas
they will be implemented. But, as Ron Cole, already said, players tend to
ask for things like make me more powerful, or make that monster easier to
kill. They tend to ask for an easier life. In my point of view, if a quest
is too hard, the creator will notice that if he keeps track of who solved it
so far and who, though tried, haven't solved it yet. And if something is too
hard, it'll be fixed or it was meant to be hard. One of the major thrills in
mudding is completing something difficult and doing it by yourself and not
because a wizard made it easier by giving you the 'Magical red glowing Kiss
of death sword'.
Ultimately the wizards write the game and decide on how hard it will be and
what their game will offer and what not. If a player doesn't like it, he has
the right to say so, offer better ideas and/or leave and find a mud that
works the way he/she likes it.
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
Well, that depends. You own the code you wrote, not the code others wrote.
In my humble opinion, you can't prohobit a coder to use the code he wrote
for a mud you're the admin of or which you house, to use on another mud, or
remove it from 'your' mud. Unless ofcourse he promised not to do just that.
I've seen muds that asked new coders to sign some forms that the code they
wrote for that mud will become copyrighted by that mud and may not be used
somewhere else.
So, to be short, yes, if you wrote the whole mud by yourself, the mud is
yours and nobody should use the code without your permission.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
I think a warning is reasonable and depending on the size of the change, I
think a warning 5-10 min before reboot is enough, while a week probably
still ain't enough if you're gonna close the mud for a period of time.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
Well, again this depends on the change. If the change can be done without
the players noticing it _and_ without having to pay for this with a worse
performance or limits to the new code, it should be coded that way. If this
can't be done, then just code it and notify the players. After all, I take
the changes are adding new fun to the game, so it's all in the benefit of
the player.
What I like to add is that you have to understand that a mud is a game,
coded by people. The people spend a lot of their valuable time into this
without getting any hard cash payment. The only way they get paid is either
by the satisfaction of happy players and/or seeing that the things they
thought of and coded, actually worked.
Players are important to the coders, because without them, they'd probably
enjoy the coding less. But the players _are_ playing a game designed by the
coders and the coders don't work for the players nor are they only coding to
satisfy the players. If you claim that as a player, either pay the coders to
do what you want, or buy a game that offers the things you want. Great ideas
are always welcome, but not all things you think great are also great in the
minds of the coders of the mud you play. They're the coders and decide on
the rules and if you don't like them, leave and find a mud that lives up to
your rules. There are enough muds out there to atleast have one that will
satisfy you and if not, I invite you to try and code on yourself and you'll
see how hard it can be.
Please don't get me wrong. I look upon myself as a reasonably fair wizard
and admin and I like hearing feedback from players. Most of the time I also
act upon the feedback and make changes if I agree with the ideas or comments
made. One thing I could stand when I started as a wizard, but can't stand
anymore is when a player tells me what to do, or claims that something is
changed in his or her benefit. I guess this counts for nearly all coders as
I say we work hard and do the best we can, but we ain't gods (though god, if
he made the world, didn't do a perfect job either else wars, extinction etc.
wouldn't exist). We are but human beings and are bound to make mistakes. We
thank you if you report something, or share your thoughts with us, but don't
start bossing us around. We are human too, and have a real life too and
wanne have fun too. So don't come to me and tell me I have to fix that bug
before I leave or tell me to this or that or else....If you ask me, you get
a honourable reply, if you boss me around, you get a kick in the butt.
And that's the way I see it. I play muds as well as code for them and as a
player I always respect my fellow players as well as the coders. I
therefore, as a coder, count on a certain amount of respect too from the
players, but if they can't seem to show atleast a little respect, they might
better leave and find a place. You don't have to respect my coding skills
and i know a lot of people out there are by far my superior, but atleast you
can try to respect my attempts at creating a game where you and I can have
fun.
Tim,
aka Puck Al'Rakham
aka Arvhatté, Sage of Dragg'ba, the world of the silvery mists
Marc Bowden
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos <il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
>Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
>circumstances substantially.
>
Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building a
player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the economic
strata you can draw from.
Of course, it depends on what kind of player base you're trying to build.
========================================================================
Erika Stokes
REMOVETHIS BITr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote in message
<35b43b95...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>Hi,
>
>After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
>recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
>question.
>
>If you are a major MUD/MUSH/Whatever person (ie: you code large
>amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
>(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
>charge,please answer the following
>
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Players have the right to play unmolested by others, mortal or immortal
unless they are in violation of the rules or put themselves in a situation
where such molestation is announced (e.g. a quest). Any other rights I have
to comment on individually as they arise as an issue.
>2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
>direction the game eventually takes?
Players' and lower level imms' opinions are carefully considered when major
decisions are made. The ultimate decisions lie with the head implementors.
Anyone making suggestions that go against the general policies and
guidelines of the mud are generally ignored or given a list of other muds
that might make them happy.
>3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>intellectual/physical property?
Yes, with the exception of areas created by builders which they may use
elsewhere but which will not be removed from the mud's world.
>4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Assuming the change is not fixing a major bug or security hole players
usually get a few months notice of any large changes and are kept up to date
on a daily basis until the change is implemented.
>5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>any analysis of options?
Our current major change, a complete migration to a new codebase (so drastic
we are calling it a new mud with the same name, immortals, and players) was
announced over a year ago and has been in the works for two years. Almost
every option under the sun has been considered and discussed ad nauseum.
We're finally going to make the change next month.
>Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
>closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
>be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
>term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
>information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
>being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
>type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
>on the above questions.
Sometimes things like that happen for whatever reason, lack of funds,
inability of the machine owner to continue hosting the game, lack of
interest by the mud owner. It sucks in a major way and I've had it happen
to me... but things get better, there are other muds--some better, some
worse though if this was your first or primary mud it is difficult to get
over it. Sometimes migrating to a new mud with some of your friends from
the old one helps.
REMOVETHIS
Cylaria back again... wow, didn't really expect quite such a response.
The MUD in question was called The ForestsEdge, and general feeling on
it, held by nearly all the players that had ever visited it, was that
it was the best mud they had ever encountered, and some had pretty
much tried anything that was advertised on these newsgroups.
The MUD was recently closed, the only explanation being that the owner
was no longer enjoying doing it. I agree that if you don't like doing
stuff there is nothing anyone can do to stop you quitting, but I do
believe that there are also more issues.
A couple of mudders and myself spent a bit of time mulling this over,
and I'll address each of my questions in turn with my own opinions.
Note that I have never coded a mud, nor owned one, just played a bit.
Opinions expressed here are mine, and the discussion today was
generally aimed at picking them to bits, so don't be too harsh, I'm a
recovering Muddie, and have just had an abortion of a 3rd year Mid
Term (test not baby)
Ok .....
1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
Ok, most of the posts indicated no rights, and on reflection I would
have to agree that nothing is certain. However, my main problem with
this is to do with the amount of time that players also invest in
playing the creation that you have given them. I used the "It's my
ball and I'm going home" anecdote before, and I still think that's
valid.
When you create a mud and it attracts a following such that people
begin spending more time on the mud that they do say... getting a
girlfriend, spending time with family, studying etc.. I think it is
almost conferring a type of "ownership" (for want of a better term) to
them. They have invested a portion of thier lives in it, as have you,
and although you are the one with the finger on the button, I don't
believe it's a "god-given right" of yours to yank that away from them.
Personally if I were to create a MUD, one of the first policies would
be that the MUD is for the benefit of the players, after all, it is a
multi USER dungeon, and that if circumstances were to force my
involvement to cease I would exhaust ever last avenue to make sure
that the MUD continued should the players so desire. That's just the
kind of guy I am.
2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
direction the game eventually takes?
Kind of a wierd question I spose, and I agree with most of the posts
that did state that inevitably the mud goes as the owners decide, with
input from players that may or may not be ignored. After all it
doesn't take too long for players to decide that a particular mud is
not their cup of tea.
3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
intellectual/physical property?
Hmm. like I said in question one, I would probably not have too much
difficulty in handing my work to another if I trusted them and knew
that the MUD would stay up for the benfit of the players. Not sure if
that answers my own question or not....
4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
In the case of TFE shutting down, I think warning was justified, and
although the discussion this afternoon did decide that it's simply a
courtesy that may or may not tbe followed, at the whim of the owner,
it is the mark of a particularly callous individual to give no warning
whatsoever. Personally if I saw behaviour like this in the real world
I would make a point to a) never hire that person into any position
where thay had to deal with people and b) probably elect to leave the
room if they were near. BTW I involve myself in a club where courtesy
to all is one of our pillars of existence (medieval group for those
that think I 'm wierd) and I'm just sensitive to discourtesy now.
5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
any analysis of options?
The analysis I really was referring to was analysis of options that
were not the extremes, such as "shut down the mud" or "keep going but
hate it". Options that I would consider reasonable, and indeed the
first that popped onto my mind was "find someone else to run it and
walk away." At the very least I would have expected notice that my
favourite pastime was about to be annihilated.
Thanks fo the comments, I've probably ruffled a few more feathers
now.. Oh for those that are gonna use the "It's just a game, get over
it" line I tend to discount that, due the the large amount of time the
people spend on such "games". Also to the "You didn't pay for it, you
don't have a say" fine, but I would never do it to someone else that
way just because I had a particularly selfish moment,
Cheers,
Cylaria
REMOVETHIS
<il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
>For further consideration I'd throw out this: would
>the usual non-pay mud / mush / online roleplaying game
>arrangements not be usefully likened to, say, someone
>hosting a party? It's the host's home, food, drink,
>furniture, etc.; people may help serve, or may help
>run games, or may just stand around and enjoy the food
>and drink. And they may be unhappy if asked to leave
>with (as they see it) inadequate notice. But I expect
>that they would little complain of their rights being
>trodden down.
No, I'd disagree. I think a better analogy would be that you have
aloowed these people to stay in your home for a number of months, and
they have added their voice, and sometimes personality to how your
house was run. You then decide unilaterally that you no longer want
the houseguests. Legally you have no problems, but I think I'd feel
like complete shite if I were to kick them all out without notice
knowing that they had built realtionships with each other and would
likely never see/hear from one another again. You are also probably
denying them to exchange information which would allow them to
communicate in such a manner "post-MUD"
Cylaria
Marc Bowden
>'limiting the economic strata you can draw from' so much
>as changing it from one to another. That is, though it's
>true that some who can afford to pay well for their online
>roleplaying may play free games as well, I have known many
>who, because they are able to pay (and definitely enjoy the
>differential in attitude, service, etc) would not consider
>free games.
>
A matter of personal preference, in the latter case.
Part of the vast appeal of MUDs was the ability to connect
easily without recourse to special software or client arrangements.
We could narrow our potential player base even further by adding the
difficulty involved in connection to the mix. Ultima Online, which you
cite later, is a good example of a decent system with several good
things going for it, but whose hardware requirements exclude a portion
of the populace from its front doors, regardless of their ability to
pay the flat fee for services.
>Also, the staggeringly large number of subscribers to such
>games as Ultima Online and the other numerous play systems
>out there may indicate that the number of members of the
>'willing to play' strata is substantially _more_ numerous
>than the 'play free or die' strata. If so, then 'pay for
>play' situations actually increase ones audience rather
>than limit it.
>
I would venture that it brings an entirely different audience
into our mix. Ultima is a commercial venture, with capital and
a respectable advertizing budget. It originally became popular
both because it was advertized and people knew where and when it was
available, and because it drew on an already existing base of
fans of the series - and I grant you that even in the relatively
Ultima-free United States that's a whole lot of people.
As to the existence of a 'play free or die' strata, I think it
exists in degrees and not absolutes. Most people would *prefer*
not to have to pay to MUD, but many of us have criterion which
would make the decision to do so painless and sensible. Eliminating
the anti-corporate fringe from the sample, each of us has in our
minds a number, buried, which is the percieved value of the games we
play - much like the PAR value of stocks. That number is flexible,
usually based on a tortured hueristic tailored to the individual,
but most likely to include common factors such as difficulty, social
climate, and time investment required. Any game that excels in
the individual's private Idaho of mental accounting, they'll probably
be willing to pay for.
>I don't know if this is the case or not, though I suspect
>it is, and would certainly be interested in some hard
>numbers along these lines. I've asked and looked for them
>before and none are yet forthcoming (and I've found none).
>Pity.
>
Empirical studies in our community are difficult to come by, due to
the chameleon nature of our playerbase - large segments of them like
to lie to themselves and each other about the most trivial of things
and verification is a pain.
Scott Goehring
Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
>>Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
>>circumstances substantially.
> Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building
>a player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the
>economic strata you can draw from. Of course, it depends on what
>kind of player base you're trying to build.
Bzzzt, wrong. If you require players to pay to play, you've entered
the realm of contract, and you, as admin, have a legal duty to provide
to your players what they've paid for, or face the distinct
possibility of being hauled in before a judge to explain why you
haven't.
--
Get the most from your GIMP -- http://wilberworks.com/
"Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the
graveyard." W. Va. Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Larnen
>
> Hi,
>
> Cylaria back again... wow, didn't really expect quite such a response.
>
> The MUD in question was called The ForestsEdge, and general feeling on
> it, held by nearly all the players that had ever visited it, was that
> it was the best mud they had ever encountered, and some had pretty
> much tried anything that was advertised on these newsgroups.
>
> The MUD was recently closed, the only explanation being that the owner
> was no longer enjoying doing it. I agree that if you don't like doing
> stuff there is nothing anyone can do to stop you quitting, but I do
> believe that there are also more issues.
>
This really is his right to do though. Not only that, I think that
unless you have *run* a mud - created it, nurtured it and watched
it grow into something with thousands of players on, you cannot
appreciate what it is like to have to give it up. For me personally,
to give up my own mud (Elephant Mud), would take one hell of a
lot of grief. If it happenned that this ever came to pass, what
became of the mud is a very open question. Id certainly consider
closing it.
Many mud admin have taken a LOT of shit from troublesome players.
I've been threatened with physical violence many a time, threatened
with legal action, with character assassination, with DOS's,
and pretty much anything else you can imagine. If something like
this forced me to abandon a mud which I had devoted 5-6 years of
my life to, I am not sure I would have qualms about ensuring that
such people could not 'dance on my grave' so to say.
People who know me well don't worry much about this though. As one
wizard and close friend of mine said 'you would be physically
incapable of giving Ele up', and she is right. But for many people,
their bond with the creation may not be quite so slavish. People
don't *expect* the kind of troubles that can come to a mud admin,
and how they deal with them *when* they come varies a lot.
I do think though that if an admin is driven away, they are more
likely to close the mud behind them than if they merely got bored.
If this happens you would do better to direct your annoyance at
the people responsible for driving him or her away.
>
> 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
> social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
>
> Ok, most of the posts indicated no rights, and on reflection I would
> have to agree that nothing is certain. However, my main problem with
> this is to do with the amount of time that players also invest in
> playing the creation that you have given them. I used the "It's my
> ball and I'm going home" anecdote before, and I still think that's
> valid.
Again, this seems to stem from the idea that a mud admin is merely
acting like a spoilt child by closing a mud. He may well be a
victim of systematic abuse, or even just continual and petty
complaints. This really can wear people down until they just don't
care any more. Its unfortunate when a mud closes like this (it
happenned to me as a player on RealmsMud many MANY years ago,
and Mizar before that). With Realms at least, I was able to
offer the mud a new site then and there, but the head admin
didnt have any interest. It pissed me off to lose something id
devoted so much time to, but at the end of the day, it is his
decision.
Who knows, if he hadn't then maybe I'd not have created Ele,
and not have celebrated its 5th anniversary last April in a pub
in London with over 120 people from all over the world. There are
certainly also people I've met as a result who'd I'd never have
known, and I wouldn't give them up for the world (you know who
you are ;)
Its a bitch, but you move on and its often for the better.
>
> 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
> direction the game eventually takes?
>
Passively they do. As many people have said, they can suggest ideas,
and you can bounce ideas off of them. But players must never decide
the direction of the mud, especially not in muds like Diku's and Lp's.
On a pure rp mud then maybe, but on muds with a finite 'goal' they
simply have too great a personal bias in general. (Note the 'in
general').
> 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
> intellectual/physical property?
The mud as a whole, or anything not specifically written by
another person - yes. Our copyright agreement does, however,
allow Wizards to use their own code elsewhere.
> 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
> you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
It varies massively. Sometimes lots, sometimes none. Generally
speaking if I did something huge like a player wipe, Id ensure
that people were fully compensated so what notice they had isn't
that much of an issue. For a balance type change,
or implementing a new feature, I will warn people if doing so will
not cause other problems. Often though a warning really is of no
importance. If you are modifying a balance or play issue, then
whether the player knows a week before that Fred the Orc will be
worth half the exp or finds out when they log in, makes very little
odds.
> 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
> any analysis of options?
>
> The analysis I really was referring to was analysis of options that
> were not the extremes, such as "shut down the mud" or "keep going but
> hate it". Options that I would consider reasonable, and indeed the
> first that popped onto my mind was "find someone else to run it and
> walk away." At the very least I would have expected notice that my
> favourite pastime was about to be annihilated.
>
Always and extensive.
I think you mean larger scale changes than those which most people
answered regarding though. Any change on Ele is fully considered
first and knock-on effects identified. If we had to do something
major like close the mud, wipe the players etc (which has never
happenned so far) at the very *very* least it would be fully
debated by the entire admin team.
Larnen
Scott Goehring
Richard Woolcock <Ka...@nospam.dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
>> intellectual/physical property?
>
>The mud belongs to the coder/s and builders. I own what I have coded,
>unless it was specifically for someone elses mud.
A little food for thought, based on something I heard the other day
from an intellectual property lawyer. Under the law, when a lot of
people work together to develop a work of authorship, the resulting
work is either a joint work or a collective work. As I understand it,
a "joint work" results when all participants submitted their
contributions with the intent that they would be combined together
into a single entity, whereas a "collective work" results when the
submissions were authored without intent to become part of a joint
work. (An attorney with copyright experience can certainly explain
this better than I am.) What makes the distinction important is that
all of the authors of a joint work have ownership rights over the
entire work, not merely their contribution, while each author of a
collective work has ownership rights over merely his or her
contribution.
I suspect that most MUDs are properly joint works, and if this is the
case, and my understanding of the law is also correct, then the actual
ownership of the MUD's copyright is joint amongst all builders. (I
mainly write this because most discussions of copyrights in MUDs seems
to treat them as collective works, and based on what I have heard,
this may be wrong.)
Also, to address a minor point of the comment quoted above: it doesn't
matter whether you coded something for some other MUD; you still own
everything you write except in the case that you wrote it in the
course of being employed (in which case the work-for-hire doctrine
applies).
Larnen
>
> In article <fDat1.4636$24.27...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
>
> >>Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
> >>circumstances substantially.
>
> > Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building
> >a player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the
> >economic strata you can draw from. Of course, it depends on what
> >kind of player base you're trying to build.
>
> Bzzzt, wrong. If you require players to pay to play, you've entered
> the realm of contract, and you, as admin, have a legal duty to provide
> to your players what they've paid for, or face the distinct
> possibility of being hauled in before a judge to explain why you
> haven't.
<Guess whats coming next>
Larnen looks around the newsgroup warily, and detects the
cold 'Off Topic' winds picking up from the east. Soon, he
thinks, they will again herald another legal-issues flame war....
</Guess whats coming next>
I guess a mud can always define its own Service Level Agreement
with its customers if they have to pay. If it says:
* You agree to pay us <large sum of money for something you can get
for free>.
* We agree to sometimes, but not always, provide something you can
actually play, at our sole discretion.
* We reserve the right to terminate this contract at any time
for any reason.
Then while you have indeed entered into a contract, it is a contract
that is very selective about what it promises you.
Whether anyone would actually pay to play a mud with a SLA like
that is another question. The above is also only a generality -
that exact wording is probably more full of holes than the average
sieve.
Please lets not descend into a OT thread about all of this though.
I don't run a commercial mud, and don't claim to know for certain
all the issues involved in closing such a mud down. It's also
not got much to do with the original post, which was about a free
mud.
Larnen
Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:19:20 -0700, "Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos"
> <il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
>
> >For further consideration I'd throw out this: would
> >the usual non-pay mud / mush / online roleplaying game
> >arrangements not be usefully likened to, say, someone
> >hosting a party?
>
> aloowed these people to stay in your home for a number of months, and
> they have added their voice, and sometimes personality to how your
> house was run.
>
A substantial usefulness of analogy as I see it is
to isolate, highlight, and illustrate a single point, or
a very few points, in an issue which may be complex or
distracting for other reasons. So if the analogy I
_suggested_ is not quite perfect, another will do. Yours
is adequate, if perhaps slanted a bit by your attachment
to the matter.
Doubtless your strong feelings of, hmm, abandonment and loss
of connection color your opinions on this matter. I do not
blame you for these feelings -- I have also known what it is
like to lose touch with a mud I enjoyed on very short (or no)
notice.
The 'disagreement' you assert (party vs. house-guest analogy)
is one whose difference in detail does not affect the matter
in any substantial nature as far as I can see.
Whether the owner who kicked his long term house-guests out
would 'feel like shite' (as you put it) may or may not be --
depending on how his house-guests were treating the house,
and him/her. That there is a small difference in the
situation because of the long-standing nature of the visit
I will not dispute. Still, I think the fundamental issues
remain.
As for 'cutting [the player base] off' from the ability
to communicate, I doubt that very much. Any active player
base that has failed to create non-game channels for
communication simply does not wish to create them. ICQ
lists, listservs, postings on newsgroups, email address
exchanges, IRC chat lines, etc -- all are just too easy
to set up to give that complaint any punch.
I do not wish to minimize the pain/hurt/irritation/etc
you may feel. It is real and in some portion warranted.
Cheers,
Marc Bowden
Strictly interpreted, the work-for-hire doctrine only applies to work
made for inclusion into the mudlib. Because the work done in a private
directory does not fall under the guidelines of what matterials' copyrights
fall back to the employer (17 USC 201b) in that it is not "commissioned
by the employer as part of their job description."
The rest of the mud, besides the basic framework, falls under the assertions
of the next section (17 USC 201c) which lists a collective work's copyright
details. To have it actually be a "Joint Work" the authors must have had the
intent "that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent
parts of a unitary whole. " (17 USC 101)
Scott Goehring
Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
>Strictly interpreted, the work-for-hire doctrine only applies to work
>made for inclusion into the mudlib. Because the work done in a
>private directory does not fall under the guidelines of what
>matterials' copyrights fall back to the employer (17 USC 201b) in
>that it is not "commissioned by the employer as part of their job
>description."
It also only applies if you're employed. Very few muds pay their
coders, which is part of what is required to be an employee. (The
statute doesn't define "employee" or "employment". You'll have to
look to the common law and case law for that. See _Reid v. Community
for Creative Non-Violence_, although this case deals more with the
distinction between an employee and an independent contractor.)
I also don't see how it matters whether a work-made-for-hire is on the
mudlib or on thematic content; either can be a work-made-for-hire
under the def'n in Section 101. (Section 201(b) does not define works
for hire, but instead specifies the initial ownership of the copyright
in a work-for-hire.)
But, of course, the point is moot unless you're actually employed or
contracted. And very few MUDs employ their coders or have contracts
with their contributors, so the work-made-for-hire doctrine is really
entirely irrelevant.
>The rest of the mud, besides the basic framework, falls under the
>assertions of the next section (17 USC 201c) which lists a collective
>work's copyright details. To have it actually be a "Joint Work" the
>authors must have had the intent "that their contributions be merged
>into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. " (17
>USC 101)
It seems quite obvious to me that, in many cases, the contributions
made to a MUD are, in fact, intended to be merged into interdependent
parts of a unitary whole, and thus the def'n of a joint work applies.
Lars Duening
> REMOVETHI...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
> : After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
> : recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
> : question.
>
> [snip]
>
> : 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
> : social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
>
> Dunno. What kind of rights do you suggest?
Well, every LPMudder has the right to be frogged.
--
Lars Duening; la...@cableinet.co.uk
Marc Bowden
Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>It also only applies if you're employed. Very few muds pay their
>coders, which is part of what is required to be an employee. (The
>statute doesn't define "employee" or "employment". You'll have to
>look to the common law and case law for that. See _Reid v. Community
>for Creative Non-Violence_, although this case deals more with the
>distinction between an employee and an independent contractor.)
There's a hole with no bottom. At least with a contractor you have to
have the work order in writing, and can use that as evidence of transfer
of copyright to the employer.
Although I'm loathe to bring this up, look into _PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC. v.
DUMAS_ (1995). The case is similar to the one we're debating now.
>
>I also don't see how it matters whether a work-made-for-hire is on the
>mudlib or on thematic content; either can be a work-made-for-hire
>under the def'n in Section 101. (Section 201(b) does not define works
>for hire, but instead specifies the initial ownership of the copyright
>in a work-for-hire.)
>
It's a very fine legal hair to split, I'll grant you, but it beats the
other interpretation you can make - that since programming is part of the
job description of a wizard, anything made by the wizard is property of
the administration. Ick.
I prefer to use the simple guideline that if I didn't order it, or
you didn't donate it, I can't claim it's the property of the game. Just
soothes my sensibilities some.
As to the issue of employment, determination of whether someone is an
employee or not is judged under the common law of agency, with which I am
guessing you are somewhat familiar. The four most common metrics for this
are:
* The control exerted by the employer over the employee
* the control exerted by the employer over how and where the work is done
* The supplying of resources for the employee's use
* The supplying of benefits in exchange for the work
Most administrators fulfill the balance of those requirements. Have you seen
others used in these cases?
>But, of course, the point is moot unless you're actually employed or
>contracted. And very few MUDs employ their coders or have contracts
>with their contributors, so the work-made-for-hire doctrine is really
>entirely irrelevant.
>
Not unless you narrow the scope of the definition of 'employee' to someone
who is compensated only in money. And if you do, everyone in the Red Cross,
Civil Air Patrol (yeah!), and volunteer fire brigades around the country can
drop their group liability insurance. If they're not employees, you can't
sue the people they work for, right?
>>The rest of the mud, besides the basic framework, falls under the
>>assertions of the next section (17 USC 201c) which lists a collective
>>work's copyright details. To have it actually be a "Joint Work" the
>>authors must have had the intent "that their contributions be merged
>>into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. " (17
>>USC 101)
>
>It seems quite obvious to me that, in many cases, the contributions
>made to a MUD are, in fact, intended to be merged into interdependent
>parts of a unitary whole, and thus the def'n of a joint work applies.
>
>--
Logical on the face, but not supported by facts. I can rip my area out
of Dreamshadow (my property, after all) and I'll bet real money that the
MUD doesn't stop working. Likewise, if I take that area to a game using
a 2.4.5 library, it won't break.
An exception might be a baseworld created by someone other than the
administrator at the start of the project with the intention that it be
integrated into the game proper. In a close collaboration like that, it's
obviously a joint work, because both parties had the same intent.
On the whole, however, most administrators don't expect private wizards'
files to remain a permanent part of the game. The life cycle of a wizard
is - on average - 12-18 months. That's pitifully small compared to some
of our obsessions-er, games.
Scott Goehring
Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
> Logical on the face, but not supported by facts. I can rip my area out
>of Dreamshadow (my property, after all) and I'll bet real money that the
>MUD doesn't stop working. Likewise, if I take that area to a game using
>a 2.4.5 library, it won't break.
I will admit that there seem to be a lot of semi-autonomous "areas"
wandering around out there that do have that capability. Low-theme or
no-theme muds will lack the necessary collective intent to become
joint works. And these are, sadly, probably the majority of muds out
there.
rr...@lanminds.com
BITr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
>recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
>question.
>
Majorly snipped
> Without further
>information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
>being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
>type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
>on the above questions.
>
>Thanks,
>Cylaria, dissappointed TFE player that hopes it returns under new
>management.
>
Cylaria,
Please keep in mind that the mud administrators DO have lives outside
the mud. For all you know, the person who owned the mud could have
just gotten fired, be seriously ill, be getting divorced, or any of a
hundred other things that would keep them from having time to run a
mud. Heck, for all you know, the FBI finally caught up with him and
seized the computer as "evidence". And, of course, the person may
have just gotten tired of dealing with players, and possibly some of
his immortals. Things can happen suddenly that make someone take a
mud down. Of course, it's always nicer if you get a little warning so
that it's not so surprising, but sometimes life does not cooperate.
The point is, I sincerely doubt that they took the mud down to make
life difficult for YOU.
Kira Skydancer
Malte Tancred
Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
>
> Strictly interpreted, the work-for-hire doctrine only applies to work
>made for inclusion into the mudlib. Because the work done in a private
>directory does not fall under the guidelines of what matterials' copyrights
>fall back to the employer (17 USC 201b) in that it is not "commissioned
>by the employer as part of their job description."
>
>of the next section (17 USC 201c) which lists a collective work's copyright
>details. To have it actually be a "Joint Work" the authors must have had the
>intent "that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent
>parts of a unitary whole. " (17 USC 101)
>
Are these laws US laws or are they appliable worldwide?
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Malte
--
Malte Tancred
OOPS art, HB
ma...@oops.se, http://www.oops.se/~malte
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
> >circumstances substantially.
> >
>
> Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building a
> player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the economic
> strata you can draw from.
> Of course, it depends on what kind of player base you're trying to build.
I disagree partially here. Paying for a service does give you a great
degree more recourse if the service is unsatisfactory. You can in most
places either have the improper service repaired/replaced or get your money
back. It also gives the customer a much greater impact on the business if he
leaves or threatens to leave, which increases the value of their input and
feedback incredibly. Voting with your wallet is much more meaningful than
voting with your feet, if only because Dreamshadow doesn't care about your
stinky feet, but Ultima Online needs your dollars.
However it does not guarantee continued service, which seems to be the main
point of the original post. Your local pizza place will replace your dinner
if it was unsatifactory or survey loyal customers before changing the menu,
but they may still close their doors for business tomorrow or refuse you
future service because you beat up the delivery guy.
[NOT SNIPPING THE GLORIOUS .SIG! PLAY DREAMSHADOW!]
> ========================================================================
> Marc Bowden - Soulsinger D R E A M S H A D O W
> Human Resources Director --------------------------
> The Legacy of the Three
>
> dreamer.telmaron.com 3333 or 209.118.172.5 3333 ry...@merit.edu
>
> "We did not choose to become the guardians, but there is no one else."
> ========================================================================
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
ry...@home.merit.edu (Marc Bowden) wrote:
> In article <35b43b95...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
> <rm...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >After having played a mud for almost a year now and being on th
> >recieving end of a couple of harsh actions I have to ask this
> >question.
> >
> >amounts of system code, and/or have a high level of security acces
> >(can delete p[layer files, reboot, shutdown etc) or are in general in
> >charge,please answer the following
> >
> >social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
> >
>
> feeling (and this filters down to my officers) is that a guest is
> entitled to basic human considerations: protection from unreasonable
> hazards; protection from harassment and stalking, insofar as is practical;
> reasonable extensible courtesies.
The important difference to consider is that between rights players *should*
have and those they *do* have. Ultimately you have no rights beyond the
right to leave, and the rights the mud has deigned to give you. That said,
the staff of Dreamshadow believes in a number of rights you *should* have,
and therefore has deigned to give you quite a number of them. For instance,
using adminstrative powers to invade a player's privacy (whether that be with
"snoop" or with some other device) is illegal, except with the player's
permission or in an investigation (security threat, bug abuse, etc.).
[snip]
> >3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
> >intellectual/physical property?
> >
>
> Actually no. I think the one I have the pleasure of serving is made
> for those who love her, not the other way around.
There's another important distinction to be made here: The difference
between the *code* and the *mud*. Some would say that there is no
difference, but I disagree. The mud is a community. It is owned by no one,
but many take part in it. It is shaped by staff and players alike. The code
is intellectual property, certainly. Individual muds define code ownership
differently, but they all still define it as *somebody*'s intellectual
property. We make a distinction between private and public code. Private
code (areas, etc.) is the property of the staffer who created it. Public
code (the mudlib) belongs to the organization. It is the compilation of
years of effort. Individuals retain rights to a copy of their portion of
work, but the whole belongs to Dreamshadow.
[AGAIN, THE .SIG. DREAMSHADOW IS MOTHER, DREAMSHADOW IS FATHER.]
REMOVETHIS
>Cylaria,
>
>Please keep in mind that the mud administrators DO have lives outside
>the mud. For all you know, the person who owned the mud could have
>just gotten fired, be seriously ill, be getting divorced, or any of a
>hundred other things that would keep them from having time to run a
>mud. Heck, for all you know, the FBI finally caught up with him and
>seized the computer as "evidence". And, of course, the person may
>have just gotten tired of dealing with players, and possibly some of
>his immortals. Things can happen suddenly that make someone take a
>mud down. Of course, it's always nicer if you get a little warning so
>that it's not so surprising, but sometimes life does not cooperate.
Actually I just recieved an email from GC giving a little explanation
and comment, my thanks to him for that. He does have reasons for
disconitnuing his involvement and I appreciate that, (The email was
private so I'll keep it private).
>The point is, I sincerely doubt that they took the mud down to make
>life difficult for YOU.
Never said they did, but it doesn't change the fact that that was one
of the consequences does it?
>Kira Skydancer
Cylaria
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Scott Goehring) wrote:
> In article <sAst1.4808$24.28...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> Marc Bowden <ry...@home.merit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Logical on the face, but not supported by facts. I can rip my area out
> >of Dreamshadow (my property, after all) and I'll bet real money that the
> >MUD doesn't stop working. Likewise, if I take that area to a game using
> >a 2.4.5 library, it won't break.
>
> I will admit that there seem to be a lot of semi-autonomous "areas"
> wandering around out there that do have that capability. Low-theme or
> no-theme muds will lack the necessary collective intent to become
> joint works. And these are, sadly, probably the majority of muds out
> there.
Dreamshadow is a minor exception - our theme is based on multiple worlds, so
autonomous areas aren't out of theme, they *are* the theme. As for Marc's
area working on a 2.4.5 library, that just goes to show you how out of date
it is. ;-p
Marc Bowden
>
> However it does not guarantee continued service, which seems to be the main
>point of the original post. Your local pizza place will replace your dinner
>if it was unsatifactory or survey loyal customers before changing the menu,
>but they may still close their doors for business tomorrow or refuse you
>future service because you beat up the delivery guy.
>
>
You're still bitter about that, aren't you?
Marc Bowden
Malte Tancred <ma...@oops.se> wrote:
>
>Are these laws US laws or are they appliable worldwide?
>
>Just a thought.
>
I'm only familiar with US copyright law and certain parts of the Berne
Convention, but it's comparable to most European systems.
-AW
<snip>
> aloowed these people to stay in your home for a number of months, and
> they have added their voice, and sometimes personality to how your
> the houseguests. Legally you have no problems, but I think I'd feel
> like complete shite if I were to kick them all out without notice
> knowing that they had built realtionships with each other and would
> likely never see/hear from one another again. You are also probably
> denying them to exchange information which would allow them to
> communicate in such a manner "post-MUD"
>
> Cylaria
You haven't seen Mad House, have you?
-AW
Aristotle
>Players have the right to play unmolested by others, mortal or immortal
>unless they are in violation of the rules or put themselves in a situation
>where such molestation is announced (e.g. a quest). Any other rights I have
>to comment on individually as they arise as an issue.
Why? From whence does this right derive. Rights have to come from somewhere.
-Aristotle
======================================================================
Threshold - High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
======================================================================
Aristotle
>
>Are these laws US laws or are they appliable worldwide?
Most copyright laws are international as a result of the Berne Convention.
Very few nations are not signatories to this convention- and if you have
internet access then the country is probably a signatory =).
Khall
(Aristotle) wrote:
>In article <6p3umt$2rp$1...@supernews.com>, "Erika Stokes" <erika...@akamail.com> wrote:
>>Players have the right to play unmolested by others, mortal or immortal
>>unless they are in violation of the rules or put themselves in a situation
>>where such molestation is announced (e.g. a quest). Any other rights I have
>>to comment on individually as they arise as an issue.
Blah, players have the right to be molested at my whim and slapped
around, randomly promoted to the heights of godhood only to be slayed
for using a basic god command. Cause I'm running a mid evil 'theme':)
A little bit more seriously, players have very few 'rights' I've tried
hard to stay out of this thread, but basically...even though I hated
this attitude, when i was a player...players have NO rights, other
than the right to quit. They do however have many priveledges, the
first one being the priveledge of playing the game, the others are the
priveledge of being treated how they treat others, meaning if they
don't swear at me, I don't swear at them, no matter how strongly we
disagree, as long as they maintain some degree of civility and
respect, then I clench my fists and take a deep breath or ten and
respond civilly as well. Basically, I think we all try to be as fair
as we can, some of us fail, some of us...?don't fail? But...it's
impossible to make everyone happy all the time...and like has been
said in 100 other threads...ultimately, if it comes down to the IMP vs
a player...with ideas, theme, discipline, etc. The choice of who's
opinion matters is pretty much pre-decided.
K.
-- When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another
mind that thinks and talks as yours does is something close to a
blessed event. -R. Pirsig --
>Why? From whence does this right derive. Rights have to come from somewhere.
>
>
>
>-Aristotle
>======================================================================
>Threshold - High Fantasy Multi-User Online Role Playing Game
>
>http://www.threshold-rpg.com -or- telnet threshold-rpg.com 23
>======================================================================
{See Aristotle? For once I didn't chop your sig:)}
mwi...@my-dejanews.com
ry...@home.merit.edu (Marc Bowden) wrote:
> In article <6p7q49$3aq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mwi...@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:
> >
> > However it does not guarantee continued service, which seems to be the main
> >point of the original post. Your local pizza place will replace your dinner
> >if it was unsatifactory or survey loyal customers before changing the menu,
> >but they may still close their doors for business tomorrow or refuse you
> >future service because you beat up the delivery guy.
> >
> >
>
> You're still bitter about that, aren't you?
I didn't touch that guy! He tripped! Honest! And I don't know what happened
to his wallet, either. Or his car. Or his girlfriend, for that matter.
Besides, he was *thirty seconds late*! He got what he deserved! ;-p
[Muahaha! In reality, this was just another ploy to replay the .sig!]
> ========================================================================
> Marc Bowden - Soulsinger D R E A M S H A D O W
> Human Resources Director --------------------------
> The Legacy of the Three
>
> dreamer.telmaron.com 3333 or 209.118.172.5 3333 ry...@merit.edu
>
> "We did not choose to become the guardians, but there is no one else."
> ========================================================================
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jon A. Lambert
>
>In article <fDat1.4636$24.27...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> ry...@home.merit.edu (Marc Bowden) wrote:
>> In article <6p30fq$qru$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
>> Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos <il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
>> >Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
>> >circumstances substantially.
>> >
>>
>> Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building a
>> player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the economic
>> strata you can draw from.
>> Of course, it depends on what kind of player base you're trying to build.
>
> I disagree partially here. Paying for a service does give you a great
>degree more recourse if the service is unsatisfactory. You can in most
>places either have the improper service repaired/replaced or get your money
>back. It also gives the customer a much greater impact on the business if he
>leaves or threatens to leave, which increases the value of their input and
>feedback incredibly. Voting with your wallet is much more meaningful than
>voting with your feet, if only because Dreamshadow doesn't care about your
>stinky feet, but Ultima Online needs your dollars.
>
>point of the original post. Your local pizza place will replace your dinner
>if it was unsatifactory or survey loyal customers before changing the menu,
>but they may still close their doors for business tomorrow or refuse you
>future service because you beat up the delivery guy.
>
I agree, but I don't care for the Pizza shop analogy. Your commercial
mud provider's services are perhaps more analogous to cable TV
services. If you pay a monthly fee for cable, and the service is
unusable for any portion of the month, you generally have legal
recourse to demand recompense for the portion of the monthly fee that
exceeded your service contracts allowable downtime.
So depending on the service agreement this liability could vary. In
addition, courts routinely negate service agreements which could be
construed as fraudulant. So if you attempt to run something which is
monthly fee-based and a ridiculously open-ended downtime, you will
likely find your agreement legally nullified and yourself liable.
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
David Bennett
<1dcjdpc.1wy...@usr111-edi.cableinet.co.uk>...
>Well, every LPMudder has the right to be frogged.
Which is a darn good thing.
Dreaming of being a frog,
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
David Bennett
>REMOVETHIS, BITr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
>Many mud admin have taken a LOT of shit from troublesome players.
>I've been threatened with physical violence many a time, threatened
>with legal action, with character assassination, with DOS's,
>and pretty much anything else you can imagine. If something like
Funny. No one has ever done any of these things to me...
>The mud as a whole, or anything not specifically written by
>another person - yes. Our copyright agreement does, however,
>allow Wizards to use their own code elsewhere.
I always see the mud as a collective effort by the admins. I wouldn't say
that any of the admins own the lib, everyones contribution to it has been
significiant (as an admin). Both in terms of actual code and the potential
social aspect too. If someone wrote a piece of code, I always assume that
the code is theirs. Even if it is intergrated into the mudlib itself (this
is when people ask me if they can use it on their mud).
I think the previous legal discussions between Marc and Scott pretty much
backs up what I have done and do.
If I left the mud, I would like to think it continued on without me. I
don't feel that I am so totaly and utterly linked to the mud that it would
suddenly fall apart and become a different place after I leave. I don't
think any of the admins of the mud could claim that.
>> 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
>> you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
Discworld has a fairly sophisiticated system for announcing changes, both
minor and major. Does it work? Who knows :) It helps a lot I think,
compared to when changed were very rarely notified about at all. Both for
player and creator sanity.
>> 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
>> any analysis of options?
Depends on the change (obviously). Sometimes it is debated and sometimes
not debated.
Fluffy animals in the sky reaches of blue,
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
PS Twittering.
Cyber Angel
David Bennett wrote in message <6peltg$naa$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Lars Duening wrote in message
><1dcjdpc.1wy...@usr111-edi.cableinet.co.uk>...
>>Well, every LPMudder has the right to be frogged.
>
>
>Which is a darn good thing.
>
>Dreaming of being a frog,
>[DDT] Pink fish forever.
>
>
Holly J. Sommer
> I prefer fish.. Here fishy fishy fish!
..."and *it* goes... wherever *I* may go."
-Holly, quoting obscure[1] Monty Python
[1] Yes, there is such a thing :)
--
"Brevity is the soul of wit, and the essense of lingerie."
-George Will, commencement address to Washington University 15.5.98
John Adelsberger
: 1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
: social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
None. You don't even have what you call 'social' rights. You are there
at the whim of whomever runs the game.
: 2) Do you believe that ultimately a player has no say in what
: direction the game eventually takes?
If he does, it is because the owner/developer lets him have it. He has
no right to this.
: 3) Do you believe the mud is yours, and that it remains your sole
: intellectual/physical property?
Yes. Legally and ethically, there is no other sensible viewpoint.
: 4) When considering large, sweeping changes, what kind of warning do
: you feel is reasonable to give players? how much time before-hand?
As much as possible, because I want to keep players, but this isn't a
matter of necessity - it is a desire I will satisfy to whatever
extent necessary things allow.
: 5) How long do you spend considering such changes, do you go through
: any analysis of options?
Yes, and a while, but solely on my own terms.
: Right, The reason I ask is because The ForestsEdge MUD has recently
: closed. This action was taken with no warning to players and seemed to
: be unilateral decision made by the "owner" (for want of a better
: term, it wasn't running on his machine either). Without further
: information to the contrary, and judging by the shutdown message now
: being displayed, no immortal/builder was consulted or informed. This
: type of action sickens me, and I'll explain after I get a few comments
: on the above questions.
If the guy owns the code, you're SOL - this is one of the risks of playing
on a mud run by one person you don't know. There are larger muds whose
code is not individually owned at this time, if you feel a great need for
security. There are also (Blech...) pay muds that have to meet contractual
obligations. Granted, he's been rude, but being rude is neither criminal
nor necessarily unethical.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
- Ayn Rand
Erin Marie Kawas
While the only true right a player may have is the right to leave, it's
in the interests of the mudding community to generally grant more than
that. Just as stock MUDs can be blamed for injuring the collective
playerbase, systematic abuse or neglect by MUD administrators may drive
desirable players away from the hobby.
Someone mentioned that MUD administrators have real lives and problems
and should not be held accountable for rash actions like player abuse or
sudden shutdowns. Yet, while MUD administrators may hold this ultimate
right, the community of developers should discourage its use.
Every MUD feeds on good players. Even one which has the luxury of more
players than it can handle should not treat its surplus roughly. Better
that the extra players decide to move on to different, less populated
MUDs, than that they give up on MUDing altogether. Down the line, even
that original popular world may benefit from the continued strong flow
of players if a split or external circumstance leaves it wanting for
fresh, new citizens.
I reject the assertion that longtime players are owed nothing for their
involvement. If nothing else, they deserve the slightest modicum of
reciprocal respect. I found it strange that when speaking of ownership,
everyone spoke of builders and coders, but no one mentioned the story --
the constant daily interaction between players that builds up a
wonderful, believable environment. To many people, the players are what
makes the MUD, not the administration. In my eyes, instead of code
ownership arguments, a good MUD should have players arguing about who
gets to write down and publish the storyline.
In any case, what sane player wants to invest hours and hours of time
into something whose owner cries "It's mine, mine, all mine..."
constantly? I am hardly surprised that there are so many power-hungry
novice programmers starting their own MUDs. Apparently this community
attributes little value to someone who contributes by being a good
PLAYER and nothing more.
What good are a million MUDs if lack of respect for players leaves only
50 pre-pubescent borgs to populate them? A lot of MUD administrators
need to wake up and admit to themselves that when they opened their MUDs
to the public, they wanted, expected, and usually SOLICITED players,
implicitly acknowledging that their efforts were incomplete without
them. Getting fed up, pissed, bored, etc. with the whole thing will
never change the fact that it wasn't a total one-way street; whether or
not the exchange was even, they needed and got something from the
players as well.
All that means is that good players need to be given a bit of
acknowledgement and respect for the role they've played in this whole
thing, else mantras like "vote with your feet" are likely to see them
walking away from MUDs altogether.
Meara
REMOVETHIS
<emk...@cs.princeton.edu> wrote:
Meara's general comments on attitudes of imms towards players
<snipped>
Well said!, couldn't have done it better myself
Cylaria
Larnen
> >I've been threatened with physical violence many a time, threatened
> >with legal action, with character assassination, with DOS's,
> >and pretty much anything else you can imagine. If something like
>
> Funny. No one has ever done any of these things to me...
Consider yourself lucky.
As the head admin on my mud, it falls to me to take action against
players who are in breach of our rules. I don't know if you have
been in this position, as the person who makes the final decision
for as many years as I have, but once in a blue moon you encounter
someone who is seriously fucked up. Such people do not take kindly
to you removing their access.
For example, I once had a player who considered it his enshrined right
to harrass female players. Now this is something I feel pretty strongly
about, and this particular idiot would not accept that there was any
reason
he shouldnt spend all day being highly offensive to women. He was asked
to
stop and refused. Other measures were taken, but he continued to persist
in his behaviour and eventually he was ridded from the mud - after, I
would
add, being warned that this would happen if he didnt desist. This player
considered it his 'right' to log onto the mud and to use it any way he
wanted
though, and thus became highly offensive and began making various
threats when
I refused to reverse the decision.
I can see what you are inferring above - that it is bad adminning that
causes this sort of thing, but you are quite wrong. Bad adminning CAN,
but anyone can be subject to it if you draw the short straw and end up
with a slightly unbalanced player who you need to take action against.
Such players also will often attribute the reason they are being
punished
to anything BUT the real reason. One asian lad decided he was getting
ridded
because I was racist, not because he spent all day making threats
against
female players who wouldnt go out for a drink with him rl, another
decided
that I hated americans because I was banning him for a month - ignoring
the fact that he had been calling me just about every explitive under
the
sun for the last hour (over, I might add, something that was a council
action and nothing to do with the Wizards at all).
I do not run a mud that can be described as arbitary - action is taken
against
players only after serious misdemenours and, except in the most extreme
of cases,
after a warning of what will happen to them.
Larnen
Larnen
>
> I reject the assertion that longtime players are owed nothing for their
> involvement. If nothing else, they deserve the slightest modicum of
> reciprocal respect. I found it strange that when speaking of ownership,
> everyone spoke of builders and coders, but no one mentioned the story --
> the constant daily interaction between players that builds up a
> wonderful, believable environment. To many people, the players are what
> makes the MUD, not the administration. In my eyes, instead of code
> ownership arguments, a good MUD should have players arguing about who
> gets to write down and publish the storyline.
>
I would agree with this in part - long term players *are* due thanks and
respect,but I do not agree that this gives them part ownership in the
mud.
Every business values it's regular customers, but such customers cannot
just
demand the business keeps running if the owner wants to shut it down.
The question about the story is an interesting one though. Certainly if
the
time came that I wished to close my own mud (and may it never happen!),
I
would have no objection to people writing up the history of it, or
producing
an anthology work set within it. I think that the actual 'rights' to
such
fiction would belong to the mud owner though. My guess would be that
this would be like the relationship between an author (such as, say,
Terry Brooks), and an anthology based in the world he created.
I *think* that in this case, Terry Brooks would still own the rights and
could block such a book if he wanted - but this really isn't my field,
so feel free to correct me :)
> In any case, what sane player wants to invest hours and hours of time
> into something whose owner cries "It's mine, mine, all mine..."
> constantly? I am hardly surprised that there are so many power-hungry
> novice programmers starting their own MUDs. Apparently this community
> attributes little value to someone who contributes by being a good
> PLAYER and nothing more.
No - this community certainly values such people, but this doesn't give
them the right to any part of the mud if the owner doesn't wish to
give them it. Over the years, I have come to know and be good friends
with a number of my players (and no, before anyone says it, they don't
get special treatment :P ), and obviously their part in the mud is
extremely important, but they would have no right to take my backups
and run a copy of the mud if I decided to close it down.
I think the thing that is going astray here is that there is a
fundamental
difference between respecting someone as a player and them having a
stake in the ownership of the mud.
Larnen
Psychochild
>
> In article <fDat1.4636$24.27...@news.itd.umich.edu>,
> ry...@home.merit.edu (Marc Bowden) wrote:
> > In article <6p30fq$qru$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
> > Ilya, SCC, Game Commandos <il...@gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> > >Of course paying for a mud (or a party) would change
> > >circumstances substantially.
> > >
> >
> > Probably not that substantially. The social mechanism for building a
> > player base is pretty much identical, you're just limiting the economic
> > strata you can draw from.
> > Of course, it depends on what kind of player base you're trying to build.
>
> I disagree partially here. Paying for a service does give you a great
> degree more recourse if the service is unsatisfactory.
As a professional developer on a commercial game, allow me to agree with
your comment. It is QUITE different when you have to cater to paying
customers.
For example, at 3DO, where I work, we have people on the payroll that
are basically full-time (plus) Customer Service. If you have a problem,
you can usually reach one of these people quickly. This is needed,
because we need swift correction of problems before a paying customer
leaves the game.
It is also much harder to appeal to people. People on the 'Net want
stuff for free. The idea of paying for something is quite a shock, to
say the least. :) We need to fight against the urge for people to go
for the cheapest or free online game. That means we get fewer people
that just want to "try" the game for a bit.
Just my experiences.
Standard disclaimer: I don't even pretend to speak for 3DO in an
official capacity.
--
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, web...@psychochild.org aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
John Adelsberger
: As a professional developer on a commercial game, allow me to agree with
: your comment. It is QUITE different when you have to cater to paying
: customers.
I'm more than certain that it is, although I want nothing to do with the
commercial gaming world:)
: It is also much harder to appeal to people. People on the 'Net want
: stuff for free. The idea of paying for something is quite a shock, to
: say the least. :) We need to fight against the urge for people to go
: for the cheapest or free online game.
I doubt your game is really much like what most of us first think of
when we say 'mud,' because of the name as much as anything else, but
even so, I'll say this for those who have thought about starting
commercial online games: if it isn't _different_ from existing text
based muds in _significant_ (to players, not coders) ways that are
considered(by players, not coders) to be beneficial, nobody will
pay for it. Just being better in common ways(better bugfix times,
better QC/spelling, more creative areas, etc) will NOT do it, because
paying is just too big a deal to be worth such relatively minor
benefits as these bring to players. In other words, unless you either
have the manpower to do something really big, like a 3d graphical setup,
or else you're a _real_ visionary, spare yourself and everyone else:)
By the way, the fact that I've never even heard of your game does
not bode well for it - if _I_ haven't heard of it, neither have most
of your potential players. I'd suggest getting a creative marketing
guy ASAP:)
John Adelsberger
: ..."and *it* goes... wherever *I* may go."
Welcome to the middle of the Usenet post.
: -Holly, quoting obscure[1] Monty Python
: [1] Yes, there is such a thing :)
No, there isn't. All Monty Python is well known. The problem is that
most people are amazingly ignorant:)
Holly Sommer
> Holly J. Sommer <som...@mugs.net> wrote:
> : -Holly, quoting obscure[1] Monty Python
> : [1] Yes, there is such a thing :)
>
> No, there isn't. All Monty Python is well known. The problem
> is that most people are amazingly ignorant:)
Eh, how can something be well-known, and most are ignorant of it? :)
-Holly, thinking "fishy fishy in the sea..."
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Holly Sommer <hso...@micro.ti.com> wrote:
: John Adelsberger wrote:
: > No, there isn't. All Monty Python is well known. The problem
: > is that most people are amazingly ignorant:)
: Eh, how can something be well-known, and most are ignorant of it? :)
Calculus is well known. Nevertheless, 99% of the population would be at
a loss to define the term, much less explain the math:)
Now, for a more serious answer: I decided long ago that the general
ignorance of the population at large doesn't mean much in deciding
what's well known. You don't have to be Barney to be well known.
Since I always use my own definitions of terms, it is difficult to
be wrong about such things:)
(Think about it... 90%+ of the world has never _heard_ of Monty Python...
does this mean Monty Python's _existance_ is not well known?:)
Holly Sommer
> (Think about it... 90%+ of the world has never _heard_ of Monty Python.
> does this mean Monty Python's _existance_ is not well known?:)
Then that makes the quote obscure *poke*. And, to answer your question,
yes, I think that does make them "not well known." The 3rd definition of
obscure in the dictionary I have here [1] says "relatively unknown."
I'd classify 10% heard-of as "relatively unknown."
-Holly, enjoying JJA's waffles for breakfast :)
[1] Webster's Ninth Collegiate, 1991 printing... a little out-of-date ;)
Cyber Angel
people we are considering.. I personally don't often include Amazon natives
in general surveys.
Oh well, must just be me
Cyber Angel
- Technically, it isn't technical.
Holly Sommer wrote in message <35C1D2C0...@micro.ti.com>...
Jacob Hallen
<REMOVETHIS BITr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>1) What rights do you believe players should have besides generally
>social rights (not being sweared at etc)?
... logging in on Genesis ...
=> help rights
This is the bill of players' rights:
PARAGRAPH 1
Every player has the right to be a frog.
PARAGRAPH 2
Should the system the player is on fail to implement the "being frog"
functionality, the player has a right to pretend he is a frog.
PARAGRAPH 3
If a player does not exercise his right to be a frog, or to pretend to be one,
other players have a right to pretend he is a frog.
PARAGRAPH 4
If the player feels uncomfortable with the epithet "he", he may substitute
it with a word of his choice in the entire bill of rights.
Cyber Angel
Cyber Angel
Jacob Hallen wrote in message <6q2qud$ldc$1...@nyheter.chalmers.se>...
Mats H. Carlberg
> yes, I think that does make them "not well known." The 3rd definition of
> obscure in the dictionary I have here [1] says "relatively unknown."
> I'd classify 10% heard-of as "relatively unknown."
Ah, yes, then most things in the western world is unknown, since about 1000000000
chinese haven't heard of it...
--
Mats H. Carlberg MSc., Tech. Lic.
http://www.ifm.liu.se/~macar
- Signatures can contain viruses! Spread the word!
Mats H. Carlberg
Eric S Johnson
>
> I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had one.
>
And what are you, some kind of thread nazi?
(Muah, killed it if everyone plays nice!)
Lewis Zephyr
no a thread KGB!
(not fun to play nice!)
Mats H. Carlberg
>
> Mats H. Carlberg wrote:
> >
> > I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had one.
> >
>
> And what are you, some kind of thread nazi?
>
> (Muah, killed it if everyone plays nice!)
I am, just as you, free to express my opinion. I did. You are, of course, free to
disagree with me, which you obviously do.
Lars Duening
> Eric S Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Mats H. Carlberg wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had one.
> > >
> >
> > And what are you, some kind of thread nazi?
> >
> > (Muah, killed it if everyone plays nice!)
>
> I am, just as you, free to express my opinion. I did. You are, of course,
> free to disagree with me, which you obviously do.
You know Godwin's Law?
--
Lars Duening; la...@cableinet.co.uk
John Adelsberger
Holly Sommer <hso...@micro.ti.com> missed the point when she wrote:
: John Adelsberger wrote:
: > (Think about it... 90%+ of the world has never _heard_ of Monty Python.
: > does this mean Monty Python's _existance_ is not well known?:)
: Then that makes the quote obscure *poke*. And, to answer your question,
: obscure in the dictionary I have here [1] says "relatively unknown."
: I'd classify 10% heard-of as "relatively unknown."
Relative to what audience? Surely not this newsgroup... is there ANYONE
here who hasn't heard of Monty Python? If so, do you live in a cave, or
have you up until now been Amish, or what? If you want to use the
entire planet as the audience, then long division is obscure. This is
obviously a senseless frame of reference for most purposes.
Holly Sommer
*boggle* All I claimed originally was that the MP quote I used was
obscure and that yes, there are such things as obscure MP quotes.
Prove me WRONG on that claim, if you want. I couldn't care less about
any further THEORY on who has heard of them and who hasn't. Obviously
if I thought MP was obscure, I wouldn't refer to them as "MP", but
rather, I'd write out the whole name "Monty Python."
I guess that stick up your ass at least helps keep your posture
nice and straight :)
-Holly
Pat Moore
Holly Sommer wrote in message <35C9B445...@micro.ti.com>...
All I have to say to this is:
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
-Pat
an...@ymous.com
<ma...@ifm.liu.se> wrote:
>I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness, if it ever had one.
Thanks very much. I think the purpose was well served actually and as
the sole starter of this thread I'm offended by your glib remark.
Cylaria
John Adelsberger
Holly Sommer <hso...@micro.ti.com> wrote:
: I guess that stick up your ass at least helps keep your posture
: nice and straight :)
Oh, hey, here we go... I've seen LOTS of stuff from you that would have
elicited incredible crudity in response, but I was always nice because
I had a notion of who you were and you seem like a reasonable person,
and then you go and do this:) Here's my ever so original reply...
BITE ME!
:)
John Adelsberger
Pat Moore <sw_ter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I do. I invited them over for dinner. They said they'd bring cole slaw.
Eric S Johnson
> All I have to say to this is:
>
>
*sings* The Spanish Inquisition...!
Holly Sommer
> Oh, hey, here we go... I've seen LOTS of stuff from you that would have
> elicited incredible crudity in response, but I was always nice because
> I had a notion of who you were and you seem like a reasonable person,
> and then you go and do this:)
Accumulated response time on my part. IOW: that stick-in-ass comment has
been percolating for awhile - had to let it out :)
> Here's my ever so original reply...
>
> BITE ME!
>
> :)
Heh, always more fun with a smiley :) *chomp*
-Holly
PS: Thanks for sparing me in the past *wink*
MgicTG1
what was the original quote?
and
was it RAT coleslaw?
|\/|atthias, AKA African Swallow