Player Rights
Michael Tillmann
I'm the God of a MUSH and we have recently - within the last two months
- established a constitution of sorts for the game, known as the MUSH
Covenant. It lays out various things, such as the powers of the Wizards
and admins. Also, it states various rights that all players can expect
to be entitled to, and places restrictions on Wizards. Examples of some
of the rights of players are:
* Every player accused of a Rule violation is entitled to a trial;
either a trial by Judge if it's a "minor" Rule violation, or a trial by
Judge and Jury of players if it's a "major" Rule violation.
* Wizards are not allowed to be @set DARK in any location except their
own rooms or the Staff Lounge, unless they're observing players who they
have reasonable suspicion are attempmting to crash the game or do
damanage to the database.
* Wizards are not allowed to examine players' +mail without permission
from God unless there is a reasonable urgent need to do so.
* Players may not log or otherwise record events occuring in a private
room without the permission of the room's owner, and if they do get
permission and do log they must inform all the players in that room who
are not set LOG_OK.
I'm just wondering what other MU*s out there have similar 'bills of
rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
curiousity. :)
Eddie13b
No we just get pushed and pulled like play dough,yep thats it
Mike Harrold
Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
: I'm the God of a MUSH and we have recently - within the last two months
Players have rights? Novel concept ;-)
/Miko
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Take the cheese to sickbay, the Doctor should take a look at it as soon |
| as possible. -- B'lanna Torres - Star Trek Voyager - 'Learning Curve'. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Tillmann
Michael T Farnworth wrote:
>
> Michael Tillmann wrote:
>
> > * Wizards are not allowed to be @set DARK in any location except their
> > own rooms or the Staff Lounge, unless they're observing players who they
> > have reasonable suspicion are attempmting to crash the game or do
> > damanage to the database.
>
> achieve something then you should just make it completely impossible.
> A well written system should not be crashable by any user input anyway.
> They are doing you a favour if they work out a way to do so! It gives
> you the chance to fix the code.
No. Not whenever they want.. only when they're in their own rooms, or
the Staff Lounge. Wizards sometimes want to be DARK so they aren't
bugged.. which is the only legitimate use in my eyes. If they think
someone is plotting to crash the game though.. they can "spy" on them.
And I don't know much about gamecrashes, it's never happened to me and
I've never had to "spy" on anyone but the clause is there just in case.
Besides, I wasn't talking them about crashing it from online but
plotting to crash it by hacking into the MUSH account, etc.
> > * Wizards are not allowed to examine players' +mail without permission
> > from God unless there is a reasonable urgent need to do so.
>
> When is there ever an urgent reason to go through somebody else's mail?
> If they want you to read it I am sure they will send it to you!
I had a case recently where the +mail system was acting up and every
time you tried sending +mail to someone it would just stall the system
and the semaphore count would start rising for no apparent reason. To
figure out what mailbox was the problem I examined them, then @drained
the nuisance mailboxes. This I consider a reasonable reason to examine
someone's +mailbox.
> > * Players may not log or otherwise record events occuring in a private
> > room without the permission of the room's owner, and if they do get
> > permission and do log they must inform all the players in that room who
> > are not set LOG_OK.
>
> If you see something go past your screen then there is little difference
> between remembering it for repeating or recording it word for word.
> If anything recording is better because it keeps things accurate rather
> than interpreted. If however you are talking about seeing things
> you shouldn't normally see, then why allow it in the first place?
This rule was mostly to stop people from logging TS or other private RP
and then posting it somewhere. However, you should really be more sure
about who's company your'e keeping before letting them observe any
sensitive rp anyways. But, the rule is there.. just in case.
christopher john raehl
I find that this is ridiculous. Give the commands to people who won't
abuse them. You're just asking or whining and bitching etc etc. And who
is going to run these trials? And how do you get people with real lives
to show up to them? Are you seriously going to have juries of players
trying other players? Sounds to me like you need to get rid of some rules
or make your rules enforced by the code. If you really have enough
problems with your admin to actually prompt the creation of bullshit like
this, its time to get a new set of admin. As for mail, I don't even think
admin should have access to it AT ALL. Period. There is nothing there
that they need to know.
- E
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Michael Tillmann wrote:
> I'm the God of a MUSH and we have recently - within the last two months
> - established a constitution of sorts for the game, known as the MUSH
> Covenant. It lays out various things, such as the powers of the Wizards
> and admins. Also, it states various rights that all players can expect
> to be entitled to, and places restrictions on Wizards. Examples of some
> of the rights of players are:
>
> * Every player accused of a Rule violation is entitled to a trial;
> either a trial by Judge if it's a "minor" Rule violation, or a trial by
> Judge and Jury of players if it's a "major" Rule violation.
>
> * Wizards are not allowed to be @set DARK in any location except their
> own rooms or the Staff Lounge, unless they're observing players who they
> have reasonable suspicion are attempmting to crash the game or do
> damanage to the database.
>
> * Wizards are not allowed to examine players' +mail without permission
> from God unless there is a reasonable urgent need to do so.
>
> * Players may not log or otherwise record events occuring in a private
> room without the permission of the room's owner, and if they do get
> permission and do log they must inform all the players in that room who
> are not set LOG_OK.
>
Michael Tillmann
Sthrngypsy wrote:
>
> >I'm just wondering what other MU*s out there have similar 'bills of
> >rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
> >curiousity. :)
> >
> >
>
> rights, although I think part of it goes something like "players have the
> right to mud without unreasonable interference from immortals.":p. Also
> players will make any game related rules not handled by code through a voting
> system and will also vote for
> enforcement officials, who can be removed from office through a majority vote.
> May work, may not, at least it's different.:p.
That is very interesting. How do you define "unreasonable interference"
though? Hm, so you let the players make up rules for the game? I'd be
worried about doing that.. perhaps it's just the 'control freak' in me,
but I think they'd end up with some bizarre rules that didn't really fit
the theme of the game, etc. Rulemaking is handled by a council on my
MUSH, made up of me, the Wizards and the Head Admins of the various
organizations on the game. Wizards are in charge of enforcing the rules.
Michael Tillmann
> > rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
> > curiousity. :)
> >
> >
are a lot of sections to the MUSH Covenant and most of them don't need
to be used, in fact we've never had to use the trial procedure yet, but
in case we do.. it's there and nobody can whine about it because it's
been clearly set out from the beginning. As for who will run the trials,
they're run by a randomly selected Judge from the pool of Judges
available. Judges are appointed by the MUSH Council for indefinite terms
and a Judge can refuse to serve at a trial if they wish, or the MUSH
Council can refuse to let them server ovre it if they think they'd be
too biased. Yes, we would have real juries of players.. though only for
major rule violations and they'd be randomly selected and people would
not be forced to show up, but we'd hope we'd find enough responsible
players to do so.
Lastly, as to Wizards being able to examine +mail. There are situations
where we need to do maintenance on the +mail system. I cited one example
in another post to somebody else where on my MUSH recently we had a bug
in the +mail system where if someone tried to use the +mail command it
would freeze up the system and the semaphore count would start to rise
without explanation. So, I had to examine +mailboxes to see which one
was the troublemaker and @drain it. That is a reasonable need to examine
somebody's +mailbox in my opinion.
Wayne Cameron
On 21 Oct 97 12:08:39 GMT, a...@infinet.com (Mike Harrold) wrote:
>Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
>: I'm the God of a MUSH and we have recently - within the last two months
>: - established a constitution of sorts for the game, known as the MUSH
>: Covenant. It lays out various things, such as the powers of the Wizards
<Much rubbish deleted>
>: rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
>: curiousity. :)
>
>Players have rights? Novel concept ;-)
>
>/Miko
Players have three rights
1 The right to be nuked if they comit a major No-no.
2 The right to be nuked if they commit a minor No-no
3 The right to be nuked if they contest either of the first two
rights.
Playing on a M*** run by, built by and paid for by another person is
a privelage, it carries no rights.
Wayne
Sthrngypsy
>That is very interesting. How do you define "unreasonable interference"
>though? Hm, so you let the players make up rules for the game? I'd be
>worried about doing that.. perhaps it's just the 'control freak' in me,
>but I think they'd end up with some bizarre rules that didn't really fit
>the theme of the game, etc. Rulemaking is handled by a council on my
>MUSH, made up of me, the Wizards and the Head Admins of the various
>organizations on the game. Wizards are in charge of enforcing the rules.
I'd have to dig up the actual document to see how unreasonable interference is
defined. The rule enforcement thing is so that if players feel an enforcement
official is biased or is not doing his/her job, they can simply vote him/her
out of office. As far as rules not fitting in with the theme goes, as this
is a loosely themed mud (i.e. medieval), I can't really see this being a
problem, though lord knows I'm not omniscient.
Sthrngypsy
>Sounds to me like you need to get rid of some rules
>or make your rules enforced by the code. If you really have enough
Actually one of the worst, most out of control muds I've ever played attempted
to do this. It may be alright for smaller muds, but code can never replace
human intervention. (IMHO of course).
Although I'm not thinking so much of rules for immortals, as this mud only had
(has) two, but for players.......as a female, if I get on a mud I rather like
it to have a no sexual harassment policy....which I can't forsee a way of
coding (not to say there isn't one as I am hardly a great coder:p).
Ron Harney
Wayne Cameron <ca...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<344dd397...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>...
Which is precisely why so many people wander the newsgroups looking for a
"good" mud. If a person starts a M*, then they have to give a little
leeway to the players (I believe these are listed as the reason for a
m*.... no players, no M*..). I have quit playing several M* (Isn't that
irritating? I'm going to say MUD :>) because of the "I'm a god, I own the
thing, and yer a pissant" attitude which you seem to advocate.
Players should know up front what will be tolerated, what will not be
tolerated, and have a list of things they can do if there is a "power trip"
problem with an immortal. Not a big deal, and it makes the MUD more
enjoyable for the guys who build it, as well as the people who play it.
I'm not saying that players should be given free reign to run all over the
immortals, but it gets kind of lonely sitting on a T1 with no one to talk
to because people got sick of the attitudes of an owner.
Ron
Michael Tillmann
I agree with you. It's true, a MU* is your property and as God you can
do what you like with it.. the players there are merely guests on your
property. However, how many hosts do you know who treat their guests
like slime and end up having many visitors?
Wayne Cameron
Umm, if you read what I wrote I said if the players foul up they are
toast, if they behave we get along just fine, in fact very few of them
even know I'm there.
Wayne
Brian Gray
mich...@direct.ca wrote:
> it's there and nobody can whine about it because it's
> been clearly set out from the beginning.
I just had a good chuckle at this one. We're still talking about a MUD
here, aren't we? Hehe...not whining...rofl
-- Brian
Ron Harney
Wayne Cameron <ca...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<344edf6d...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:38:10 -0700, Michael Tillmann
> <mich...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> >Ron Harney wrote:
> >>
> >> Wayne Cameron <ca...@geocities.com> wrote in article
> >> <344dd397...@newshost.dynamite.com.au>...
> >> > On 21 Oct 97 12:08:39 GMT, a...@infinet.com (Mike Harrold) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
> >> > Players have three rights
> >> >
> >> > 1 The right to be nuked if they comit a major No-no.
> >> >
> >> > 2 The right to be nuked if they commit a minor No-no
> >> >
> >> > 3 The right to be nuked if they contest either of the first two
> >> > rights.
> >> >
> >> > Playing on a M*** run by, built by and paid for by another person
is
> >> > a privelage, it carries no rights.
(snippity dooh dah)
> Umm, if you read what I wrote I said if the players foul up they are
> toast, if they behave we get along just fine, in fact very few of them
> even know I'm there.
If I misunderstood your post, then I apologize. But, it seemed to me that
the way you phrased it conveyed a message of "Yer a pissant, so deal". If
this is not the case, please disregard my post, however, if I did interpret
it correctly, then my point still stands. You said nothing about giving
any leeway to your players, nor did you say anything that would give me any
reason to assume that your site would be anything but a "walking on
eggshells" experience, trying not to offend the Imms.
I play to relax, have fun, and enjoy the experience with my friends. If I
had any interest in running a MU*, I would probably give it a try, but I'm
not a coder, although I have experimented with building a few areas with
the Duris editor. I have a girlfriend who does all the C++ and A-F
codebase or whatever the hell it is :> If someone goes to the trouble of
spending the thousands of hours that it takes just to get a decent MU* off
the ground, then yes, I am going to respect their wishes as to my conduct
on their site. But I refuse to go trough the experience constantly saying
"How can I do this and not offend Mr. Touchy".
Ron
christopher john raehl
Really, I find that lame. Grow up. Ignore it. BTW, code is MUCH
better than human intervention. Sure, it isn't very good at censoring
your players, but who cares what they say? Let them talk out their asses
for all I care, they're not hurting anything. If someone can't take some
ascii text on their screen, that's their problem. As far as the actual
GAME is concerned, there is very little (I'd say nothing, but I'm sure
someone can come up with something) that can't be correctly contained with
code, at least as far as players are concerned. In my experience, any
rule that requires a human to be around to enforce it is a bad rule.
Imm rules are entirely different, as you want to give your admin the
ability to use commands in ways you don't forsee in advance, so limitting
things with code isn't always the greatest idea in this respect. On muds I
admin, I have 2 rules:
1) Don't do anything stupid.
2) If you're not sure if its stupid, its stupid.
This is completely sufficient, as anyone on the admin should know what
is appropriate use of their commands and what is not. If they don't know,
then they shouldn't be admin. Very simple.
- E
christopher john raehl
> I totally agree. You can't replace human intervention/supervision with
> code. Especially on a MUSH, which has very little in the way of coded
> globals when compared to some of the MUDs out there. MUSHes are about
> roleplay with each other, posing back and forth and such and dont' use
> as many commands and coded systems.
It is interesting to note, however, that the whole MUD thing was
CREATED to replace human intervention/supervision with code. I suppose
you could all fire up telnet and role the dice yourselves if you REALLY
wanted to, but I wouldn't recommend it.
I still havn't seen any examples of 'rules' which need human
intervention to be enforced, unless you are trying to control the behavior
of your players and what they say. See FascistMUD. Actually, I think
John was going to even code that too.
- E
Derek Harding
christopher john raehl wrote in message ...
>
> Really, I find that lame. Grow up. Ignore it. BTW, code is MUCH
>better than human intervention. Sure, it isn't very good at censoring
>your players, but who cares what they say? Let them talk out their asses
>for all I care, they're not hurting anything. If someone can't take some
>ascii text on their screen, that's their problem. As far as the actual
Frankly I find this response quite appalling. When people talk on a mud it
is people communicating with each other. Your statements indicate that you
believe anyone should be allowed to say (and presumably do since that too is
just ascii text) anything to anyone else. Thus racism, sexism, harrassment,
stalking, intimidation, rape etc. are all perfectly acceptable in your
community.
The 'code is better than human intervention' is very enlightening in this
context. When a person views code as better than human interaction it
suggests to me that that person undervalues human interaction. Many muds
have human interaction as a significant part of the game. Such communication
is important (and meaningful to the people concerned), abuse of individuals
in this context is IMHO a bad thing.
Thus on Discworld (although apparently not on Christophers eutopia)
harrassment is not acceptable behaviour. In other words, like every
community we have rules about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.
I believe this makes Discworld a better place to be.
Derek
--
Derek Harding
Technical Director, TPD Publishing
http://www.tpd.com/~derek/
[email address deliberately mangled just change v to c]
Michael Tillmann
Matt Chatterley wrote:
>
> Firstly, players have no rights.
I disagree. :)
> Secondly, all enforcement of 'rules' requires both automated and human
> means to be as effective as possible.
>
> Why do I say this?
>
> Okay, the notion that players have rights is fully erronious and will
> cause problems in the long run - players are privaleged to be playing a
> game which the admin have created (please, lets not hear the 'without
> players, there is no game' argument - some people really do code/build
> things for their own sake). With this position as a privaleged person, the
> player has no right to make further demands.
In a way you are a correct. The MU* is the admin's creation and his/her
property. However, there are still some basic rights that all people
have no matter where they are, or whether they came at someone's
invitation. Take for a RL example:
Someone invites you over to their house to play a game of cards. You
accept and go over.
Now, that person proceeds to swear and curse at you during the game for
perceived cheating at the cards, then decides that he's going to take
your chips away and physically remove you from his house.
This may legally be within his rights, but it is morally a really stupid
and offensive way to behave. Therefore, we must examine both the
technical issue of 'Does the player actually have any real legal rights'
and the moral issue of 'Does the player have the right to have some
reasonable expectations about being treated in a reasonably fair and
civil manner'. It is my opinion that though a player may not have any
rights technically, they must be given them anyways for the sake of
decency and harmonioius coexistence and simply because it's the right
thing to do.
> You may say they have the right to not be harrassed or abused while
> playing, and this is true - I was wrong, players have *one right*, the
> right to disconnect themselves at any time when they no longer wish to
> play.
That is the most fundamental right, yes. If you don't like how a host
treats you, leave and make sure to tell everybody else what a jerk that
host is and advise them not to go over to so-and-so's house (to use a RL
example again).
> Yes, this is an extreme view.
Yes, it is. ;)
> On the second point, over-automation of enforcement gives the impression
> that the admin do not care about the players (which, some may not - but
> most typically do), and encourages those who wish to break the rules to
> try and evade the enforcement (I am assuming that you are enforcing
> *player* regulations, not *character* regulations, for in the latter case,
> evading enforcement may be a feasible style of play, but in the former a
> removable offense).
Hm, I am not quite sure what you mean here. I assume you're saying that
breaking the rules ICly, as your character, may be acceptable on some
games but breaking the rules OOCly as the player would not be? If so, I
agree with that. However, if a player does break the rules ICly, as
their character, they must be willing to accept the IC consequences
should they get caught.
> If the front is fully human, it will be very tiring work, and extremely
> liable to burn people out.
It depends on how many rules you have and how trustworthy your
playerbase is. My MUSH hasn't got a tonne of rules, since we let most
issues between players work themselves out. We simply 'outlaw' certain
things like player harassment, obscene behaviour in public places, etc.
These things are relatively easy to detect since someone usually reports
them to us.. and they don't happen very often since the players have the
common sense to act in accordance with the rules for the most part.
> Thus a combination between the two is most desirable (for instance,
> logging of any speech containing 'outlawed' words, and later human review
> to see if the context is deemed unsuitable).
>
> Regards,
> -Matt Chatterley
> http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
> "All extremists should be taken out and shot."
Kevin Doherty
Derek Harding (de...@tpd.vom) wrote:
: christopher john raehl wrote in message ...
: >
: > Really, I find that lame. Grow up. Ignore it. BTW, code is MUCH
: >better than human intervention. Sure, it isn't very good at censoring
: >your players, but who cares what they say? Let them talk out their asses
: >for all I care, they're not hurting anything. If someone can't take some
: >ascii text on their screen, that's their problem. As far as the actual
:
: Frankly I find this response quite appalling. When people talk on a mud it
: is people communicating with each other. Your statements indicate that you
: believe anyone should be allowed to say (and presumably do since that too is
: just ascii text) anything to anyone else. Thus racism, sexism, harrassment,
why is this bad? if the players find ways to harass others, then the others
can find ways to prevent this harassment. just use a client and gag the
offender. now you can go back to your happy little world.
: stalking, intimidation, rape etc. are all perfectly acceptable in your
: community.
this isn't physical contact though, so half of that stuff doesn't even
apply. racism and sexism are unpleasant to be sure, but, as in the real world,
they should be dealt with by the community itself, not by the govt/admin.
It's not illegal (to my knowledge) to be racist or sexist.
: Thus on Discworld (although apparently not on Christophers eutopia)
: harrassment is not acceptable behaviour. In other words, like every
I think you misinterpret his intentions. He's not advocating harassment,
he's just against rules made by the administration prohibiting it.
--
.---------------------------------------------------------------.
| Kevin Doherty UNIX sysadmin |
| kdoh...@mbhs.edu / {Hetfield,Menza}@{Dragons' Star,HoloMUD} |
`---------------------------------------------------------------'
Sthrngypsy
>Does the player actually have any real legal rights'
>and the moral issue of 'Does the player have the right to have some
>reasonable expectations about being treated in a reasonably fair and
>civil manner'. It is my opinion that though a player may not have any
>rights technically, they must be given them anyways for the sake of
>decency and harmonioius coexistence and simply because it's the right
>thing to do.
>
Wonderful phrasing:). It was never my intention to imply that players had
LEGAL rights; however repeating that whole paragraph every time I wanted to
discuss "players rights" would rapidly become tedious:).
Dreyaldumar
On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:26:51 GMT, ca...@geocities.com (Wayne Cameron)
wrote:
>Playing on a M*** run by, built by and paid for by another person is
>a privelage, it carries no rights.
I've seen that attitude kill a MUD before. A MUD does not exist
without players; without players it's just a chat room for the Gods
and their best buddies. Players do not stick around a MUD where the
Gods treat them like dirt.
Drey.
| We used to hate people, now we just make fun | Public PGP 5.0 Key at |
| of them. It's more effective that way. KMFDM | http://ic.net/~cierhart/ |
Jon Lambert
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97103...@mpc.dyn.ml.org>,
ro...@mpc.dyn.ml.org says...
>
>If a player breaks OOC regulations, they will be OOCly punished, and this
>has no bearing whatsoever on any IC game elements (nor should it).
>
>If a character breaks IC regulations, the player must be OOCly prepared
>for the character to accept the IC consequences. Failure to do so is
>typically a breach of OOC regulations (see above).
>
>Note the use of 'player' and 'character'. Characters cannot by definition
>break OOC regulations, nor players IC ones. Basically I would like an
>environment whereby a thief character can steal from a fighter character
>without the fighter *player* reacting in a negative fashion to the *thief*
>character. Is requiring this degree of emotional detachment between player
>and character unreasonable?
>
I fully agree with these notions and am attempting the same.
>
>But you must have an iron hand within your velvet glove.
>
In respect to OOC problems I call this the "benevolent dictator"
approach:
1) It leaves no doubt from the players' perspective that the
administrator is the host of the game, determines it's direction and
rulings are final. Consistency is important.
2) There is an implicit notion that the administrator has the desire
to act in the best interest of the game, is reasonably rational, and
behaves in a manner befitting a host (as in your card game above).
It is an art/skill to actually doing the above, doing it consistently
and also in communicating it to the playerbase. Even so, persons _will_
enter your mud that you would never invite to your house. Clarity, brevity
and visibility of "house rules" is important.
--
Jon A. Lambert
Dreyaldumar
>game which the admin have created (please, lets not hear the 'without
>players, there is no game' argument - some people really do code/build
>things for their own sake). With this position as a privaleged person, the
I've met very few programmers, myself included, who code things for
their own personal satisfaction and are able to derive pleasure from
it without gloating in some fashion; the gloating usually takes place
in the form of showing it off to others.
If you really, truly can enjoy coding a MUD for the sheer pleasure of
it and don't need to show it off (which requires a constant influx of
players to go "oh, wow!") then more power to you. Personally, I can't
buy into your attitude.
John Adelsberger
Dreyaldumar <cier...@ic.net> wrote:
: On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:26:51 GMT, ca...@geocities.com (Wayne Cameron)
: wrote:
: >Playing on a M*** run by, built by and paid for by another person is
: >a privelage, it carries no rights.
: I've seen that attitude kill a MUD before. A MUD does not exist
At least with me, it isn't an attitude; it is a fact. I'm a nice guy,
and players generally don't even know I'm there, but if they break the
rules deliberately, they're gone, and I don't waste time worrying about
anyone's 'rights,' because on my machine, playing my game, you have no
rights.
--
John J. Adelsberger III
j...@umr.edu
"I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me Cookie." - Bloodhound
Gang
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Michael Tillmann <mich...@direct.ca> wrote:
: I disagree. :)
If you think players have 'rights,' in any sense, on a mud, think again.
Your sole relevant 'right' is to remove yourself from the game, and it
doesn't apply to the game, but rather to your choice of how to spend your
time.
: civil manner'. It is my opinion that though a player may not have any
: rights technically, they must be given them anyways for the sake of
: decency and harmonioius coexistence and simply because it's the right
: thing to do.
While I would have no players if I did so, I could happily treat them like
utter trash; your 'must' is too strong a word. Perhaps you mean 'should.'
John Adelsberger
Derek Harding <de...@tpd.vom> wrote:
: Frankly I find this response quite appalling. When people talk on a mud it
: is people communicating with each other. Your statements indicate that you
: believe anyone should be allowed to say (and presumably do since that too is
: just ascii text) anything to anyone else. Thus racism, sexism, harrassment,
: stalking, intimidation, rape etc. are all perfectly acceptable in your
: community.
I think this depends entirely on what your mud is. On a mud designed to
facilitate gameplay _and_ social interaction, probably this attitude is
correct. On the other hand, if you have a PK mud with numerous small
groups of extremely violent players who go around slashing each other
to pieces, such horrors as one may inflict using emote and so forth are
probably a part of the game, and anyone who doesn't like it probably
doesn't like that sort of game anyway.
Michael Tillmann
Kevin Doherty wrote:
>
> Derek Harding (de...@tpd.vom) wrote:
> : christopher john raehl wrote in message ...
> : >
> : > Really, I find that lame. Grow up. Ignore it. BTW, code is MUCH
> : >better than human intervention. Sure, it isn't very good at censoring
> : >your players, but who cares what they say? Let them talk out their asses
> : >for all I care, they're not hurting anything. If someone can't take some
> : >ascii text on their screen, that's their problem. As far as the actual
> :
> : is people communicating with each other. Your statements indicate that you
> : believe anyone should be allowed to say (and presumably do since that too is
> : just ascii text) anything to anyone else. Thus racism, sexism, harrassment,
>
> can find ways to prevent this harassment. just use a client and gag the
> offender. now you can go back to your happy little world.
>
> : community.
>
> apply. racism and sexism are unpleasant to be sure, but, as in the real world,
> they should be dealt with by the community itself, not by the govt/admin.
> It's not illegal (to my knowledge) to be racist or sexist.
I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
sexism, racism, etc. And btw, there are laws against racist activities
in some jurisdictions, including my country.
Matthew R. Sheahan
Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
> a wrongheaded assumption to make. You make a lot of assumptions in RL as
> to how you're going to be treated when you go over to someone's house
> for example. You assume that if someone invites you into their home
> they're not going to treat you like something they found in a kleenex
> after they blew their nose.
so if a guest arrives and spends a week insulting your home's decor,
making incessant sexual innuendoes to anything that looks like it might
be female, and defecating on the living room floor, why, it's still
incumbent on the host to treat the guest as something other than the
disgusting snot-rag he is.
right. got it.
chiaroscuro
Michael Tillmann
Nope. It's not. But as a civilized host you should deal with the matter
in the appropriate way. Give them a warning at the first hint of
inappropriate behaviour. Then escalate the punishments/reprimands as
needed.
Jon Lambert
In article <3458a...@nntp1.nac.net>, ch...@crystal.palace.net says...
>
>so if a guest arrives and spends a week insulting your home's decor,
>making incessant sexual innuendoes to anything that looks like it might
>be female, and defecating on the living room floor, why, it's still
>incumbent on the host to treat the guest as something other than the
>disgusting snot-rag he is.
>
>right. got it.
>
You're certainly on the right track here. ;)
Perhaps the thread should be renamed Player Responsibilities.
--
Jon A. Lambert
Michael Tillmann
> : >
> : > Derek Harding (de...@tpd.vom) wrote:
> : > : community.
> : >
> : > this isn't physical contact though, so half of that stuff doesn't even
> : > apply. racism and sexism are unpleasant to be sure, but, as in the real world,
> : > they should be dealt with by the community itself, not by the govt/admin.
> : > It's not illegal (to my knowledge) to be racist or sexist.
> :
> : I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
> : friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
>
> benefit, then this is true, but most admins are not there for the players
> as such. A lot of people run muds because they want to code/roleplay/whatever.
> If you view a mud in terms of anyone having an inherent responsibility for
> something on the mud whether it be the players being responsible for
> respecting the immortals or the immortals being responsible for keeping the
> players happy, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Some players
> will disagree with you. Sometimes two of your friends will quarrel and
> if you consider it your responsibility to please everyone, you're just
> making your life tougher.
The purpose of a *good* administration should be to create a game
enjoyable for all: admins and players both. If an administration doesn't
have this as its main objective the game isn't worth the bits and bytes
it's made of, IMHO.
[snip]
Kevin Doherty
Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
: Kevin Doherty wrote:
: >
: > Derek Harding (de...@tpd.vom) wrote:
: > : stalking, intimidation, rape etc. are all perfectly acceptable in your
: > : community.
: >
: > this isn't physical contact though, so half of that stuff doesn't even
: > apply. racism and sexism are unpleasant to be sure, but, as in the real world,
: > they should be dealt with by the community itself, not by the govt/admin.
: > It's not illegal (to my knowledge) to be racist or sexist.
:
: I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
: friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
If you view a mud from the standpoint of admins existing for the players'
benefit, then this is true, but most admins are not there for the players
as such. A lot of people run muds because they want to code/roleplay/whatever.
If you view a mud in terms of anyone having an inherent responsibility for
something on the mud whether it be the players being responsible for
respecting the immortals or the immortals being responsible for keeping the
players happy, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Some players
will disagree with you. Sometimes two of your friends will quarrel and
if you consider it your responsibility to please everyone, you're just
making your life tougher.
: sexism, racism, etc. And btw, there are laws against racist activities
: in some jurisdictions, including my country.
Most things like this break other laws but are just classified as racist, such
as burning crosses/churches, discrimination in employment, etc. I've yet
to come across a law that forbids holding a set of beliefs.
Adrian Carlson-Hedges
In article <63b2je$v...@clarknet.clark.net>, Kevin Doherty
<kdoh...@clark.net> writes>: > a wrongheaded assumption to make. You make a lot of assumptions in RL as
>: > to how you're going to be treated when you go over to someone's house
>: > for example. You assume that if someone invites you into their home
>: > they're not going to treat you like something they found in a kleenex
>: > after they blew their nose.
>: so if a guest arrives and spends a week insulting your home's decor,
>: making incessant sexual innuendoes to anything that looks like it might
>: be female, and defecating on the living room floor, why, it's still
>: incumbent on the host to treat the guest as something other than the
>: disgusting snot-rag he is.
>
>it. Most of this discussion has a lot of admins treating players like crap
>in general, not because of good reason. Taking someone's comment out of
>context or assuming absurd circumstances isn't the way to convince people
>of your argument.
>
True, true.
However following this analogy further. It is often the case that a
player has had some sort of disagreement (for whatever reason), and now
takes it upon his/herself to harass your mud, and generally cause
trouble. In this situation, it is pretty much impossible for the admin
(host) to no longer invite this player (guest) into his house. The guest
has a very large number of keys (methods/routes of access). Without
putting a dead lock on the door (locking out all players/new
players/guests/whatever) the host has no way of keeping them out.
I guess this is all moving aside from the main topic. the above would
probably only apply if a player had in some way infringed upon another
player's/wiz's/admin's rights.
Othy
--
Adrian Carlson-Hedges
Nynaeve Al'Meara
Hi Michael,
> I'm just wondering what other MU*s out there have similar 'bills of
> rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
> curiousity. :)
Well in the policy very strict rules are set for the immortals as well
as the players, if either a player or an immortal breaks the rules,
I nuke 'em. But note: I never, ever, (EVER!) nuke someone without first
listening to both the person(s) involved, (all of 'em). This way no one
get unjustly treated.
What I see as a problem is players/imm's who look at the whole thing as
'Me' and not 'We'.
I have to agree to some degree to what others have said. Yes, it _is_
my machine and my mud, this gives me final power in all decisions.
But, I offer this MUD to players for the good of all, not me, not the
players. So I try to be just in all cases.
--
Nynaeve Al'Meara, pioneer.eunet.fi for the 127 -part ;)
Michael Tillmann
Nynaeve Al'Meara wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > I'm just wondering what other MU*s out there have similar 'bills of
> > rights' for their players, or even constitutions of sorts? Just out of
> > curiousity. :)
>
> Well in the policy very strict rules are set for the immortals as well
> as the players, if either a player or an immortal breaks the rules,
> I nuke 'em. But note: I never, ever, (EVER!) nuke someone without first
> listening to both the person(s) involved, (all of 'em). This way no one
> get unjustly treated.
Eek. You nuke for .every. offence? Hm, sounds a little harsh to me.
> What I see as a problem is players/imm's who look at the whole thing as
> 'Me' and not 'We'.
I can agree with that.
John Adelsberger
Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
: I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
: friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
: sexism, racism, etc.
It is the responsibility of the administration to provide whatever sort
of environment they damn well please. If you don't like it, you leave.
Friendly, sexist, racist, whatever, is irrelevant to this, and is only
relevant to your decision of whether to play or not. Your desire
for game that is friendly and non-discriminatory does not compel me,
as the owner and author of a game, to make my game friendly or
non-discriminatory.
: And btw, there are laws against racist activities
: in some jurisdictions, including my country.
Tell you what. You log into a mud, and make an attempt to sue
them for racism. You'll be laughed out of court, but go for it.
1) Most people don't live in places that forbid racism, and the odds
are that any given mud server doesn't either.
2) Proof(in the US, 'beyond reasonable doubt.') You can't get it on
any mud I ever saw. Logs aren't good enough.
3) When you log into a game oriented mud, you aren't interacting as
yourself. (maybe you are, but that's your mistake.) You are
playing a role, and that role needent be the same sex as you, the
same race, or anything else. Discrimination laws do not apply to
fictional characters.
Michael Tillmann
John Adelsberger wrote:
>
> Michael Tillmann (mich...@direct.ca) wrote:
>
> : I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
> : friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
> : sexism, racism, etc.
>
> It is the responsibility of the administration to provide whatever sort
> of environment they damn well please. If you don't like it, you leave.
> Friendly, sexist, racist, whatever, is irrelevant to this, and is only
> relevant to your decision of whether to play or not. Your desire
> for game that is friendly and non-discriminatory does not compel me,
> as the owner and author of a game, to make my game friendly or
> non-discriminatory.
Let me clarify. It's the duty of a good administration to provide a
friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
sexism, racism, etc. I don't prohibit it specifically on my MUSH, but
harassment is prohibited and that more or less includes all that.
> : And btw, there are laws against racist activities
> : in some jurisdictions, including my country.
>
> Tell you what. You log into a mud, and make an attempt to sue
> them for racism. You'll be laughed out of court, but go for it.
>
> 1) Most people don't live in places that forbid racism, and the odds
> are that any given mud server doesn't either.
> 2) Proof(in the US, 'beyond reasonable doubt.') You can't get it on
> any mud I ever saw. Logs aren't good enough.
> 3) When you log into a game oriented mud, you aren't interacting as
> yourself. (maybe you are, but that's your mistake.) You are
> playing a role, and that role needent be the same sex as you, the
> same race, or anything else. Discrimination laws do not apply to
> fictional characters.
I wasn't saying it would be easy to enforce or even that it necessarily
should be illegal, just stating a fact that it is illegal some places as
the guy said he didn't know of any place where it was.
co...@null.net
On 30/10/97 at 05:17 AM, Michael Tillmann <mich...@direct.ca> said:
>I disagree. It is the responsibility of the administration to provide a
>friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
>sexism, racism, etc. And btw, there are laws against racist activities in
>some jurisdictions, including my country.
And how would you counter a game who base purpose and player base is
centered on sexism, racism etc? "Responsibility?" Really? How about say
strict RP for a theme for which sexism, racism, intellectual snobbery, and
all the rest are not only par for the course, but, required? Victorian
drawing rooms anyone?
--
J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@null.net
----------(*) Internet: co...@ibm.net
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Michael Tillmann <mich...@direct.ca> wrote:
: Let me clarify. It's the duty of a good administration to provide a
: friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
: sexism, racism, etc. I don't prohibit it specifically on my MUSH, but
: harassment is prohibited and that more or less includes all that.
Why is this the duty of the administration? I, as the author, owner,
and future admin(when I put it up) of my current project, do not see
any such duty. What I see is that I am working my ass off, and you
are trying to tell me that in exchange, I pick up obligations. I
don't buy it. I will decide what sort of environment I want to
create, and I will set the rules accordingly, and if you find it
unfriendly, you don't have to play.
Michael Tillmann
> >friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
> >some jurisdictions, including my country.
>
> And how would you counter a game who base purpose and player base is
> centered on sexism, racism etc? "Responsibility?" Really? How about say
> strict RP for a theme for which sexism, racism, intellectual snobbery, and
> all the rest are not only par for the course, but, required? Victorian
> drawing rooms anyone?
>
> --
> J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@null.net
> ----------(*) Internet: co...@ibm.net
> ...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
I was referring to OOC sexism, racism, harassment, etc. If it's
roleplay, it's not OOC. What people want to roleplay is more or less up
to the players involved.
Michael Tillmann
> : that they're the only one who's made the only contribution to a game.
>
> Other immorts will no doubt make their contributions, but players alone
> do no such thing.
>
> : Players contribute HUGELY to the game once it's done being coded. The
> : code is only the foundation for the game, very important but not
> : all-important unless you're a myopic introvert who spends all their time
> : with the esoteric arts of programming MU*s. There is so much more to a
>
> Players don't contribute anything of consequence. They take, but rarely
> do they give anything worthwhile.
>
> : game than simply the programming. Sure, admins put in huge amounts of
> : work, but the players put in tonnes of their time into developing
> : characters and fleshing out the worlds that the admins begin. What the
>
> Developing characters? Please. One in every thousand players does any
> more 'development' than killing everything in sight and making a few
> friends. Those few generally also immort because they care about the
> game. Almost never does any player do anything that any other player
> could not have done. On the other hand, the few of us who provide
> these games do, constantly.
>
> : heck is the point of a game without players? It's nothing but a pretty
> : little bauble to stick up on your shelf and say 'Hey, look at that, I
> : coded that. Aren't I great? I'm just so bloody terrific I could wet
> : myself.'
>
> The ability to create something as complex as a mud is a tangible and
> marketable skill. The ability to roleplay on the level seen on muds
> is not.
>
> --
> John J. Adelsberger III
> j...@umr.edu
>
> "I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me Cookie." - Bloodhound
> Gang
I disagree fundamentally with almost all of what you're talking about
here so.. I won't bother criticizing each point. The only thing I can
say is that if you think so lowly of your players it's a shame for them
and yourself. I know that on my MUSH the roleplaying ability and
responsibility of my players is very great indeed for the most part and
I'm proud not only of the game I have created, but which they have
helped me create.
John Adelsberger
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Michael Tillmann <mich...@direct.ca> wrote:
: I disagree fundamentally with almost all of what you're talking about
: here so.. I won't bother criticizing each point. The only thing I can
: say is that if you think so lowly of your players it's a shame for them
: and yourself. I know that on my MUSH the roleplaying ability and
: responsibility of my players is very great indeed for the most part and
: I'm proud not only of the game I have created, but which they have
: helped me create.
I'm talking about a traditional mud environment. emote-rp mushes aren't
the same thing, in this respect. Generally, I don't like them at all,
but this may be a fn of me having only seen really lame ones. Log into
a more traditional mud and see if anyone's character(mortals, mind you:)
actually matters to the game itself, as opposed simply to the _presence_
of some players mattering.
Peter R. Sadlon
> John Adelsberger wrote:
> >
> > Distribution:
> >
> > Michael Tillmann <mich...@direct.ca> wrote:
> >
> > : friendly game environment and this entails discouraging/prohibiting
> > : harassment is prohibited and that more or less includes all that.
> >
> > Why is this the duty of the administration? I, as the author, owner,
> > and future admin(when I put it up) of my current project, do not see
> > any such duty. What I see is that I am working my ass off, and you
> > are trying to tell me that in exchange, I pick up obligations. I
> > don't buy it. I will decide what sort of environment I want to
> > create, and I will set the rules accordingly, and if you find it
> > unfriendly, you don't have to play.
> >
Hummm... I will use my future telling abilities to say that you will have
a total of 5 charaters to ever get past level 3 on your mud, 4 of those
being your charaters.
You have the attitude of a terrible admin already and you ain't even
online, congrats.
Jon Lambert
In article <63m9eo$m...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, prsa...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca
says...
>> John Adelsberger wrote:
>> > I will decide what sort of environment I want to
>> > create, and I will set the rules accordingly, and if you find it
>> > unfriendly, you don't have to play.
>> >
>
>online, congrats.
>
I find myself in full agreement with John on this particular point.
Pray tell, who decides the matters of the environment or rules if
not the administrator or implementor? Are you making the assumption that
his rules or environment do not accidently or intentionally coincide with
that of his playerbase? Or are you suggesting there are others better
qualified to make decisions in regard to the administration of his mud?
--
Jon A. Lambert
John Adelsberger
Peter R. Sadlon (prsa...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca) wrote:
: Hummm... I will use my future telling abilities to say that you will have
: a total of 5 charaters to ever get past level 3 on your mud, 4 of those
: being your charaters.
: You have the attitude of a terrible admin already and you ain't even
: online, congrats.
Lets see...
I refuse to use the term 'rights' to mean 'general expectations of
treatment.' The reason is that the term 'rights' has a specific and
different meaning. You claim that as a result, I'm a terrible admin.
I never said there wouldn't be standards of treatment on my mud, but
you didn't ask. If it ain't you're way, I'm terrible.
Hmm... you know what? You're talking out your small end.
Roger Christie
> : that they're the only one who's made the only contribution to a game.
>
> Other immorts will no doubt make their contributions, but players alone
> do no such thing.
>
> : Players contribute HUGELY to the game once it's done being coded. The
> : code is only the foundation for the game, very important but not
> : all-important unless you're a myopic introvert who spends all their time
> : with the esoteric arts of programming MU*s. There is so much more to a
>
> Players don't contribute anything of consequence. They take, but rarely
> do they give anything worthwhile.
Man, this is a bizarre statement, even for you.
Hope you have fun on there, all by your lonesome.
John Adelsberger
Distribution:
Bob Brorsen <edit...@netcom.com> wrote:
: I disagree. Players on our mud make a lot of worthwhile contributions. A
: group of experienced players explores all new areas and reports bugs.
: They help test new weapons, new spells. They save coders many hours by
: spotting problems before something is introduced into the games. They are
: players, they have no special commands, they get no credit for their work.
Some do this. Some _few._ Most explore all new areas, test weapons,
and spells, and abuse the bugs. That said, you're right; I overstated
my case. I'll say this: _few_ players contribute anything meaningful
to the game.
: Players answer newbie questions and help newbies get started. Some
I know this sounds harsh, but if a good help system won't get someone
started and he manages to survive after being coddled by someone else,
the mud in question is probably far too easy.
: coder uses them. Players alert the immortals of problems, of abuses, of
: cheating. They let us know of little problems before they become big ones.
Actually, this last is true in one particular case: when someone is using
a bug to screw them. Of course, the same people whine and bitch and moan
when you bust _them_ for abusing and cheating, but hey... my attitude
towards it is that in general, I don't punish abuse of bugs, because I
also don't compensate for loss due to bugs. Cheating... well, if I feel
that I _know_ you did it, you're a goner. I'll put you up on the gallows
in the town square so that all may see the consequences of cheating.
(This form of cheating involves things like having mroe than one char logged
in at one time, etc.)
: Players make many important contributions. yes they whine, they bitch and
: moan too, they spam and say stupid things...but we read everything and
I suppose, as I said, that I should have said 'most players,' and not
'all players,' but I'll stand firm with my 'most players' because of
lots of experience:)
: See above....We have plenty of immortals who "care about the game",
: discover they don't like coding, don't have the time or whatever and quit.
Agreed, there are those.
: We also have players who are coders on other muds who make excellent
: suggestions.
I hadn't thought about this one.
: interested to hear too how creating a mud has translated in
: "marketability" in terms of employment. Considering how few people in the
Actually, in certain places, if you've written anything so complex from
scratch and it has anything original about it, you're probably hired.
However, I won't pretend that makes up most of the market:-)
: slow to "get it". As a former personnel consultant I'd say you'd be
: wasting time in an interview trying to do the translation.)
If I got as far as an interview, I wouldn't be mentioning it unless they
already knew. It all depends on whom you're applying to. The percentage
of small companies with truly Internet aware computer staff is much higher
than said percentage of large companies, and my interests mainly lie in
the former. Lots of these places even _host_ muds:-)
David Bennett (pinkfish)
John Adelsberger <j...@umr.edu> writes:
>Some do this. Some _few._ Most explore all new areas, test weapons,
>and spells, and abuse the bugs. That said, you're right; I overstated
>my case. I'll say this: _few_ players contribute anything meaningful
>to the game.
Cynic. In general, if you treat players nicely, they will tell you about
bugs. Often a player will run into something which is a bug and just
thjink it is part of the game... It is often quite hard to differentiate.
Some people do abuse bugs. :)
I think your definition of few is rather cynical though. Maybe your mud
just has a nice tyranical atmosphere to it? :)
>I know this sounds harsh, but if a good help system won't get someone
>started and he manages to survive after being coddled by someone else,
>the mud in question is probably far too easy.
People don't *like* reading the help files. If you have played Discworld...
we do have a pretty good player help system. We give out guide books,
they have to go through a section at the start which explains a whole bunch
of stuff... People canont remember everything and they often would prefer
to ask someone than to look stuff up in a book or whatever.
As for being too easy. No comment.
>Actually, in certain places, if you've written anything so complex from
>scratch and it has anything original about it, you're probably hired.
>However, I won't pretend that makes up most of the market:-)
Most people do not know what a mud is still.
Blue!
David.
John Adelsberger
David Bennett (pinkfish) (d...@winternet.com) wrote:
: John Adelsberger <j...@umr.edu> writes:
: Cynic.
Ironically, only in the mud world. Go figure. (Actually, I generally
think of this as a special case of the 'anonymous syndrome,' in which
people feel free to do things on muds, Usenet, irc, and so forth that
they'd never do in real life, but I don't pretend it isn't somewhat
cynical.)
: People don't *like* reading the help files.
Agreed. I don't like classes either. In general, they bore the hell out
of me. I'm more justified than your average mud newbie, though, because
I genuinely learn more going it on my own than I do in class, usually.
Even so, I find myself in class distressingly often.
: As for being too easy. No comment.
Discworld isn't easy, but that's because being sane in the clinical sense
is a serious impediment to understanding it:)
: >Actually, in certain places, if you've written anything so complex from
: >scratch and it has anything original about it, you're probably hired.
: >However, I won't pretend that makes up most of the market:-)
: Most people do not know what a mud is still.
Certainly not. I think I prefer it that way.
John Adelsberger
Roger Christie (rchr...@spinach.xylogics.com) wrote:
: > Players don't contribute anything of consequence. They take, but rarely
: > do they give anything worthwhile.
: Man, this is a bizarre statement, even for you.
: Hope you have fun on there, all by your lonesome.
Assuming I ever actually open my mud, it'll probably be popular enough.
The reason is that, having played muds for 4 years and talked to people
about them quite a bit(players, not coders) I know what irks players
and what doesn't, and my game won't have the former(things like bad
spelling, poor descriptions, unfair combat systems/instant deathtraps/etc,
immortals who are just there to be there, unfair admin policies, excessive
snooping, etc.) I didn't say I would be rude to players, or even really
harsh; what I said is that no player can _demand_ anything from me and
expect it by _right._ Playing, and everything derived therefrom, is a
_privilege._ Yes, I will ban people who deliberately break my rules.
Yes, I will make sure I'm right before I act. How much fairer can you
get?
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
John Adelsberger <j...@umr.edu> writes:
>Distribution:
>
>Bob Brorsen <edit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: I disagree. Players on our mud make a lot of worthwhile contributions. A
>: group of experienced players explores all new areas and reports bugs.
>: They help test new weapons, new spells. They save coders many hours by
>: spotting problems before something is introduced into the games. They are
>: players, they have no special commands, they get no credit for their work.
>Some do this. Some _few._ Most explore all new areas, test weapons,
>and spells, and abuse the bugs. That said, you're right; I overstated
>my case. I'll say this: _few_ players contribute anything meaningful
>to the game.
I'd love to see your statistics on this... have you looked at the effects
of being heavily RP vs primarily PK? Stock with no new areas vs. stock
with added areas vs. stock code with all new areas? small vs. medium vs.
large player bases?
Lets see, 3 variables with a total of 8 values, shoot my design book
is at home so I'll just have to wing it and say you would have to
examine about 12-18 muds, 10 to 20 players each, 20-40 hours of logs per
player, 2400-14400 hours of logs to get decent stats,
Of course if you wanted to paint all muds with a single brush you might
get away with 2000 hours of logs....
Still that must be one helluva log processing program you wrote up, why
don't you release it? And write up the report for the mud research
journal.
What's that you say, you just have your personal experience to go on?
Anecdotal experience? That you have compiled in your brain without
formal statistics?
You ever think that maybe the muds that allow you to admin and the players
you hang around with might just skew your sample?
Having a very small sample size to draw on I can't say anything concrete,
but I would not be surprized if most players contributed little to the
game beyond being there (which, IMHO, can be a valuable contribution
in-and-of-itself) if the game is too buggy they leave, if it is not very
buggy at all, they just leave the bugs alone, though if the bugs cost
them life or property :)...
I really have no idea how many abuse bugs, but I suspect it heavily
depends on the atmosphere of the mud.
But these are speculations, just as are, I suspect, John's statements.
Robert
Who is always happy to use probability and statistics in the Real World.