[ethics] Declaring the Rights of Players
Raph Koster
mailing list. The HTML version can be found at
http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/ under Essays/Declaring the
Rights of players (direct URL without the frames:
http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/playerrights.html).
Declaring the Rights of Players
Do players of virtual worlds have rights?
One of those questions that given my position, I shouldn't write
about. No matter what, any answer I give is bound to be wrong, either
from the perspective of my employers or my customers. Heck, even over
on the non-commercial side of the fence, it's likely to raise some
hackles among hardworking mud admins.
The pesky thing about rights is that they keep coming up. Players keep
claiming that they have them. Admins keep liberally applying the word
like some magic balm ("oh, you have every right to be upset…"), in
every circumstance except the ones where the players want the notion
of rights taken seriously. Of course, administrators of any virtual
space are loathe to "grant players rights" because it curbs their
ability to take action against people, restricts their ability to walk
away from it all, holds them to standards they may not be able to live
up to.
Here's a great example of a mud rights document from IgorMUD that I
had to include, well, because:
>HELP RIGHTS
=============================================================================
Igor has adopted this bill of unalienable player rights, written by
Jacob Hallen aka Tintin:
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/she/it/Garlic is a
frog.
PARAGRAPH 3
If a player does not exercise the right to be a frog, or to pretend to
be one,
other players have a right to pretend it/she/Garlic/he is a frog.
==============================================================================
There's at least one theory of rights which says that rights aren't
"granted" by anyone. They arise because the populace decides to grant
them to themselves. Under this logic, the folks who rose up in France
weren't looking for some king with a soon-to-be-foreshortened head to
tell them, "You've got the right to live your lives freely." They told
themselves that they had that right, and because they had said so, it
was so. The flip side of this is that unless you continually fight to
make that claim true, then it won't stick. The battleground is not a
military one: it's a perception one; as long as everyone is convinced
that people have rights, they do. They're inalienable only as long as
only a minority does the, uh, aliening. And, of course, especially as
long as they are enshrined in some sort of law. In other words, the
guys in charge sign away a chunk of power, in writing, that the
populace expects them to sign away.
There's another theory of rights which holds them to be intrinsic to
people. Under this far more rigid standard, all those cultures which
fail to grant them are benighted bastions of savagery. The harder part
here is agreeing on what rights are intrinsic to all people
everywhere-cultural differences tend to make that hard.
Many mud admins are of the belief that their muds are their private
playgrounds. That they have discretion on how enters and who gets to
stay. That they can choose to eject someone on any grounds whatsoever,
can delete a character at a whim, can play favorites and choose to
grant administrative favors to their friends. Even in pay-for-play
circles, it is always made very clear who owns the data, who has to
sign Terms of Service, etc. There's a bunch of this that is
antithetical to the notion of rights.
Now, it's pretty clear that there are some rights which leak over from
the real world into the virtual. If your local pay-for-play mud
operator isn't providing adequate service, you can report them to the
Better Business Bureau; there are probably sexual discrimination laws
and harassment laws and slander laws that apply equally well in both
kinds of space. But rights (and much less legislation) have not caught
up to the notion of virtual spaces very well. Which makes for an
interesting thought experiment.
What if we declared the rights of avatars?
I've based what follows on a couple of seminal documents: The
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the
National Assembly of France on August 26 of 1789; and the first ten
amendments to the Constitution of the United States, perhaps better
known as the Bill of Rights. This is, perhaps, not the best basis from
which to begin a stab at this hypothetical exercise, given our
multicultural world today; some have suggested that a better starting
point might be the United Nations Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I
admit that one reason for choosing the version I did was its language,
not its content per se.
So let's give it a whirl. This is all still hypothetical, OK?
A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars
When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and
said modes are different enough from the existing ones that question
arises as to the applicability of past custom and law; and when said
venues have become a forum for interaction and society for the general
public regardless of the intent of the creators of said venue; and at
a time when said communities and spaces are rising in popularity and
are now widely exploited for commercial gain; it behooves those
involved in said communities and venues to affirm and declare the
inalienable rights of the members of said communities. Therefore
herein have been set forth those rights which are inalienable rights
of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of all sorts, in their form
henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that this declaration may
continually remind those who hold power over virtual spaces and the
avatars contained therein of their duties and responsibilities; in
order that the forms of administration of a virtual space may be at
any time compared to that of other virtual spaces; and in order that
the grievances of players may hereafter be judged against the explicit
rights set forth, to better govern the virtual space and improve the
general welfare and happiness of all.
Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident:
That avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online
medium, and that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions
should be considered to be as valid as the utterances, actions,
thoughts, and emotions of people in any other forum, venue, location,
or space. That the well-established rights of man approved by the
National Assembly of France on August 26th of 1789 do therefore apply
to avatars in full measure saving only the aspects of said rights that
do not pertain in a virtual space or which must be abrogated in order
to ensure the continued existence of the space in question. That by
the act of affirming membership in the community within the virtual
space, the avatars form a social contract with the community, forming
a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose rights and
concomitant restrictions upon their behavior. That the nature of
virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical law, always be a
higher power or administrator who maintains the space and has complete
power over all participants, but who is undeniably part of the
community formed within the space and who must therefore take action
in accord with that which benefits the space as well as the
participants, and who therefore also has the rights of avatars and may
have other rights as well. That the ease of moving between virtual
spaces and the potential transience of the community do not limit or
reduce the level of emotional and social involvement that avatars may
have with the community, and that therefore the ease of moving between
virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community do not in
any way limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the
alleged grounds that avatars can always simply leave.
Articles:
Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based
on whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power.
Those who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only
the rights of normal avatars.
The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry,
from which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is
the right to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless,
soulless puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property,
security, and resistance to oppression.
The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space resides in the
inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who
controls the hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the
software with which it is created, and the database which makes up its
existence. However, the body populace has the right to know and demand
the enforcement of the standards by which this individual uses this
power over the community, as authority must proceed from the
community; a community that does not know the standards by which the
administrators use their power is a community which permits its
administrators to have no standards, and is therefore a community
abetting in tyranny.
Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which injures no one
else including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
instantiated on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural
rights of avatars are therefore limited solely by the rights of other
avatars sharing the same space and participating in the same
community. These limits can only be determined by a clear code of
conduct.
The code of conduct can only prohibit those actions and utterances
that are hurtful to society, inclusive of the harm that may be done to
the fabric of the virtual space via hurt done to the hardware,
software, or data; and likewise inclusive of the harm that may be done
to the individual who maintains said hardware, software, or data, in
that harm done to this individual may result in direct harm done to
the community.
The code of conduct is the expression of the general will of the
community and the will of the individual who maintains the hardware
and software that makes up the virtual space. Every member of the
community has the right to contribute either directly or via
representatives in the shaping of the code of conduct as the culture
of the virtual space evolves, particularly as it evolves in directions
that the administrator did not predict; the ultimate right of the
administrator to shape and define the code of conduct shall not be
abrogated, but it is clear that the administrator therefore has the
duty and responsibility to work with the community to arrive at a code
of conduct that is shaped by the input of the community. As a member
of the community himself, the administrator would be damaging the
community itself if he failed in this responsibility, for abrogation
of this right of avatars could result in the loss of population and
therefore damage to the common weal.
No avatar shall be accused, muzzled, toaded, jailed, banned, or
otherwise punished except in the cases and according to the forms
prescribed by the code of conduct. Any one soliciting, transmitting,
executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be
punished, even if said individual is one who has been granted special
powers or privileges within the virtual space. But any avatar summoned
or arrested in virtue of the code of conduct shall submit without
delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.
The code of conduct shall provide for such punishments only as are
strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment
except it be legally inflicted according to the provisions of a code
of conduct promulgated before the commission of the offense; save in
the case where the offense endangered the continued existence of the
virtual space by attacking the hardware or software that provide the
physical existence of the space.
As all avatars are held innocent until they shall have been declared
guilty, if detainment, temporary banning, jailing, gluing, freezing,
or toading shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential
to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed
by the code of conduct.
No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, provided their
manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the
code of conduct.
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most
precious of the rights of man. Every avatar may, accordingly, speak,
write, chat, post, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible
for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by the code of
conduct, most particularly the abuse of affecting the performance of
the space or the performance of a given avatar's representation of the
space.
The security of the rights of avatars requires the existence of
avatars with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to
enforce the provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and
privileges are therefore granted for the good of all and not for the
personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted. These
powers and privileges are also therefore not an entitlement, and can
and should be removed in any instance where they are no longer used
for the good of all, even if the offense is merely inactivity.
A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the
virtual space, be required in order to maintain the existence of
avatars who enforce the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware
and the software and the continued existence of the virtual space.
Avatars have the right to know the nature and amount of the
contribution in advance, and said required contribution should be
equitably distributed among all the citizens without regard to their
social position; special rights and privileges shall never pertain to
the avatar who contributes more except insofar as the special powers
and privileges require greater resources from the hardware, software,
or data store, and would not be possible save for the resources
obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all avatars
are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers and
privileges if they so choose; nor shall any articles of this
declaration be contingent upon a contribution being made.
The community has the right to require of every administrator or
individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose
of administration, an account of his administration.
A virtual community in which the observance of the code of conduct is
not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined, has
no constitution at all.
Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, and the virtual
equivalent is integrity and persistence of data, no one shall be
deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined per
the code of conduct, shall clearly demand it, and then only on
condition that the avatar shall have been previously and equitably
indemnified, saving only cases wherein the continued existence of the
space is jeopardized by the existence or integrity of said data.
The administrators of the virtual space shall not abridge the freedom
of assembly, save to preserve the performance and continued viability
of the virtual space.
Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons, communications,
designated private spaces, and effects, against unreasonable snooping,
eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no activity pertaining thereto
shall be undertaken by administrators save with probable cause
supported by affirmation, particularly describing the goal of said
investigations.
The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by avatars.
- January 26th, 2000
(Yes, I've had this knocking around my desk for that long.)
Lofty, eh? And I don't doubt that there's some folks out there right
now seizing on this as an important document. For all I know, maybe it
is.
But there's also some other folks who think that this exercise is
plain dangerous. As an example, let me take a co-worker of mine to
whom I showed an early draft. He pointed out that virtual world
servers run on somebody's hardware. And that most declarations of
rights give rights over personal property. By declaring that avatars
have rights, we're abrogating that administrator's right to personal
property.
Others point out that it's superfluous. After all, if virtual worlds
are just extensions of the real world, then surely all the rights we
already have apply?
What about if the virtual space in question is a game? Doesn't it, by
its nature, obviate some of these rights?
And the biggie: what if you don't accept the basic premises in the
prefatory paragraphs?
And that's where it gets interesting: in the details. I basically
posted the document to a mailing list with a collection of the
smartest virtual world admins and designers I know. Here's some of the
various comments from admins from various walks of life, who got to
see the original draft of this document (names hidden to protect the
innocent, and remarks vastly paraphrased, because many of the
objections were hypothetical ones).
A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars Rights of avatars? Why not of
"chess pieces"? Maybe the players have rights, but avatars are just
representations.
When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and
said modes are different enough from the existing ones that question
arises as to the applicability of past custom and law; Come now,
we're not that beyond current law, are we?
It's been convincingly argued (by Dr. Barry Wellman among others) that
the only difference that the Internet makes to communities is the
speed of information transmission. So what's really new here?
and when said venues have become a forum for interaction and society
for the general public regardless of the intent of the creators of
said venue; and at a time when said communities and spaces are rising
in popularity and are now widely exploited for commercial gain; it
behooves those involved in said communities and venues to affirm and
declare the inalienable rights of the members of said communities.
Therefore herein have been set forth those rights which are
inalienable rights of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of all sorts,
in their form henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that this
declaration may continually remind those who hold power over virtual
spaces and the avatars contained therein of their duties and
responsibilities; in order that the forms of administration of a
virtual space may be at any time compared to that of other virtual
spaces; and in order that the grievances of players may hereafter be
judged against the explicit rights set forth, to better govern the
virtual space and improve the general welfare and happiness of all.
Poppycock. I have not signed any agreement to keep the mud running,
and I have no responsibility towards the players. In fact, I might
have made them sign an agreement saying so!
What if the players don't want to accept their rights?
If admins see themselves as above the community, rather than part of
it, this whole thing is for nothing.
Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident:
That avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online
medium, and that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions
should be considered to be as valid as the utterances, actions,
thoughts, and emotions of people in any other forum, venue, location,
or space. Plainly incorrect; for one thing, the legal standards for
expression in other media vary wildly from country to country and, in
fact, from medium to medium. Bandwidth is arguably a commodity rare
enough to fall under the same sort of regulation as the FCC in the US
imposes upon use of the airwaves; certainly my bandwidth is a precious
resource.
Doesn't the fact that we have psychological disinhibition in virtual
spaces argue against this?
There's no consequences to online actions, and there are to real world
actions. In fact, you cuold arguably consider online actions merely
speech, and therefore bound by those standards.
Don't tell me that you are going to consider AI avatars people too.
That the well-established rights of man approved by the National
Assembly of France on August 26th of 1789 do therefore apply to
avatars in full measure saving only the aspects of said rights that do
not pertain in a virtual space or which must be abrogated in order to
ensure the continued existence of the space in question. Uh, the
rights of man approved by the National Assembly in France didn't last
very long (only until Napoleon!) and I don't think anybody lives under
them today.
With your escape hatch in this clause, you've left all sorts of abuses
available by justifying them as "necessary for the world's survival."
Sort of like the "national security" exception real world governments
use.
That by the act of affirming membership in the community within the
virtual space, the avatars form a social contract with the community,
forming a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose
rights and concomitant restrictions upon their behavior. I don't
believe in the notion of a social contract. Rights are granted
explicitly by those in power.
How do you affirm membership in a free text mud anyway?
That the nature of virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical
law, always be a higher power or administrator who maintains the space
and has complete power over all participants, but who is undeniably
part of the community formed within the space and who must therefore
take action in accord with that which benefits the space as well as
the participants, and who therefore also has the rights of avatars and
may have other rights as well. In many cases, the admins and the
people with fingers on the power switch aren't the same people. What
do you do then?
In fact, the person with a finger on the power switch is probably
beholden to others--network service providers, maybe. What about them?
That the ease of moving between virtual spaces and the potential
transience of the community do not limit or reduce the level of
emotional and social involvement that avatars may have with the
community, and that therefore the ease of moving between virtual
spaces and the potential transience of the community do not in any way
limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the alleged
grounds that avatars can always simply leave. "Why should the creator
of an online community -- especially one which is created explicitly
for the purpose of entertainment -- be bound to do certain things
simply because others have chosen to make an emotional or social
investment in his/her construct?" (A direct quote).
Articles:
1. Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based
on whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power.
Those who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only
the rights of normal avatars.
You know, we deny avatars the right to exist pre-emptively sometimes,
by not approving them as new players.
Are you arguing that inequality within society is only justified if it
improves the standing of the lowest common denominator? How Rawlsian.
(No, I don't know who Rawls is either).
2. The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry,
from which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is
the right to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless,
soulless puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property,
security, and resistance to oppression. There are literally muds out
there intended for psychological experimentation. Muds where they ask
for people banned elsewhere so they can test-to-destruction new game
notions. What about those?
What about orcs storming in and oppressing the players? Or NPC
thieves?
You just defined "the aim of virtual communities." That's not
liberating, that's severely limiting! The beauty of virtual
communities is their ability to be whatever we want them to be.
What if I want you to treat me like a dog?
Property, freedom from oppression--these are pretty Western rights,
you know. Are we dragging Western ideology into primacy in the virtual
setting here?
Proudhon in his classic essay "What is Property? An Inquiry into the
Principles of Right and Government" argues that property is inimical
to liberty, you know. (No, I didn't.)
3. The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space resides in the
inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who
controls the hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the
software with which it is created, and the database which makes up its
existence. However, the body populace has the right to know and demand
the enforcement of the standards by which this individual uses this
power over the community, as authority must proceed from the
community; a community that does not know the standards by which the
administrators use their power is a community which permits its
administrators to have no standards, and is therefore a community
abetting in tyranny. It might not be an individual who controls the
hardware. It could be a consortium too.
But the players only have whatever powers the admins give them anyway.
4. Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which injures no one
else including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
instantiated on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural
rights of avatars are therefore limited solely by the rights of other
avatars sharing the same space and participating in the same
community. These limits can only be determined by a clear code of
conduct. What if there are two muds on the same machine? According to
this article, each can feel free to do whatever to starve the other of
CPU and memory.
I dare you to define injury!
Arbitrary imposed rule sets are not the only way to define rights, you
know.
5. The code of conduct can only prohibit those actions and utterances
that are hurtful to society, inclusive of the harm that may be done to
the fabric of the virtual space via hurt done to the hardware,
software, or data; and likewise inclusive of the harm that may be done
to the individual who maintains said hardware, software, or data, in
that harm done to this individual may result in direct harm done to
the community. What about a game? We might explicitly wantBuffy to
blast Bubba with a fireball spell.
What about a virtual world for psych experiments? Or one which is not
open to the public? Or one which is solely for the admin's amusement?
Who gets to define hurtful? (me! me!)
You just made admins immune from harm. This means that they are not
part of the community and subject to the same things as everyone else.
This means this document vanishes in a poof of logic and doesn't
exist. QED.
6. The code of conduct is the expression of the general will of the
community and the will of the individual who maintains the hardware
and software that makes up the virtual space. Every member of the
community has the right to contribute either directly or via
representatives in the shaping of the code of conduct as the culture
of the virtual space evolves, particularly as it evolves in directions
that the administrator did not predict; the ultimate right of the
administrator to shape and define the code of conduct shall not be
abrogated, but it is clear that the administrator therefore has the
duty and responsibility to work with the community to arrive at a code
of conduct that is shaped by the input of the community. As a member
of the community himself, the administrator would be damaging the
community itself if he failed in this responsibility, for abrogation
of this right of avatars could result in the loss of population and
therefore damage to the common weal. Pfft. The one real right they
incontrovertibly have is the right to log off.
Can guests contribute?
Who decides what contributions are worthy?
Do you automatically become a citizen, or is there some hurdle there?
So admins have to listen, not act. Big whoop-te-do.
7. No avatar shall be accused, muzzled, toaded, jailed, banned, or
otherwise punished except in the cases and according to the forms
prescribed by the code of conduct. Any one soliciting, transmitting,
executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be
punished, even if said individual is one who has been granted special
powers or privileges within the virtual space. But any avatar summoned
or arrested in virtue of the code of conduct shall submit without
delay, as resistance constitutes an offense. What about games where
arbitrary orders are part of the rules? As a simple example, what
about "Simon Says"?
What about the notion that anything an admin orders you to do is by
definition, the law?
This isn't even a right, it's a law. Rights are trumps against laws.
This says you have the right not to be banned unless the law says you
can be banned. That's just window-dressing.
8. The code of conduct shall provide for such punishments only as are
strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment
except it be legally inflicted according to the provisions of a code
of conduct promulgated before the commission of the offense; save in
the case where the offense endangered the continued existence of the
virtual space by attacking the hardware or software that provide the
physical existence of the space. What about games where the evil king
arrests characters?
This really curtails the freedom admins have to police things. I have
better things to do than try to anticipate everything a player might
do.
According to this clause, the majority can establish a Code of Conduct
that systematically removes all the rights, and the populace can't do
anything about it.
9. As all avatars are held innocent until they shall have been
declared guilty, if detainment, temporary banning, jailing, gluing,
freezing, or toading shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not
essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely
repressed by the code of conduct. What if the game is harsh in its
rules?
In France the burden of proof rests on the accused, not the accuser.
This is very North American.
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, provided
their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by
the code of conduct. What about a game where no freedom of speech is
part of the fictional game setting?
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most
precious of the rights of man. Every avatar may, accordingly, speak,
write, chat, post, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible
for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by the code of
conduct, most particularly the abuse of affecting the performance of
the space or the performance of a given avatar's representation of the
space. What about a game where no freedom of speech is part of the
fictional game setting?
12. The security of the rights of avatars requires the existence of
avatars with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to
enforce the provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and
privileges are therefore granted for the good of all and not for the
personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted. These
powers and privileges are also therefore not an entitlement, and can
and should be removed in any instance where they are no longer used
for the good of all, even if the offense is merely inactivity. What
about a game where a corrupt government (even one that players can
take on significant roles in) is part of the fictional game setting?
Who removes these powers, and who grants them?
13. A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the
virtual space, be required in order to maintain the existence of
avatars who enforce the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware
and the software and the continued existence of the virtual space.
Avatars have the right to know the nature and amount of the
contribution in advance, and said required contribution should be
equitably distributed among all the citizens without regard to their
social position; special rights and privileges shall never pertain to
the avatar who contributes more except insofar as the special powers
and privileges require greater resources from the hardware, software,
or data store, and would not be possible save for the resources
obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all avatars
are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers and
privileges if they so choose; nor shall any articles of this
declaration be contingent upon a contribution being made. You mean I
can't discontinue someone's account because they didn't pay the bill?
In combination with Article 16, does this mean if I delete a character
I have to pay them for it?
Doesn't this prevent a community from selectively appointing admins,
coders, whatever, since it requires that anyone who can make the
contribution be allowed to?
Does this mean that the game admins cannot sell a superpowered item
for cash money to players? Because that seems to me to be a valid
business model in use today by several companies.
In fact, if no rights are contingent uopn a contribution, does that
mean that you should not have to pay for your avatar or your access?
14. The community has the right to require of every administrator or
individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose
of administration, an account of his administration. What sort of
statement?
15. A virtual community in which the observance of the code of conduct
is not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined,
has no constitution at all. No community can do the assuring--that
requires admins.
What powers need separated and how?
And do these really apply to the guy with his finger on the power
button? He is unbannable, after all. If you did ban him, then there
are no rules left because there is no ultimate enforcement. And then
what?
IMHO, bad customers or players have less rights than good ones!
Who are we to determine what is and is not a constitution?
"I think we have to acknowledge that any participation in this kind of
Charter would be strictly voluntary. Therefore, in the interests of
diplomacy, we shouldn't include statements that are going to alienate
people from signing on to the document."
16. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, and the virtual
equivalent is integrity and persistence of data, no one shall be
deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined per
the code of conduct, shall clearly demand it, and then only on
condition that the avatar shall have been previously and equitably
indemnified, saving only cases wherein the continued existence of the
space is jeopardized by the existence or integrity of said data. You
mean monsters can't loot or break equipment? Or characters die?
This has too many exceptions. All you're saying is that players have
the right to be pissed off if it happens.
17. The administrators of the virtual space shall not abridge the
freedom of assembly, save to preserve the performance and continued
viability of the virtual space. What about a game setting where the
right to assembly is not recognized?
18. Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons,
communications, designated private spaces, and effects, against
unreasonable snooping, eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no
activity pertaining thereto shall be undertaken by administrators save
with probable cause supported by affirmation, particularly describing
the goal of said investigations. On a lot of muds, eavesdropping on
players is considered a perk (repellent, I know).
Worse yet, a lot of countries don't grant their citizens this right
when using the Internet. How are you going to resolve the discrepancy?
What about all the other privacy issues? Depending on the mud, the
admins may know a heck of a lot about you & your lifestyle.
19. The enumeration in this document of rights shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by avatars. Then what is it
supposed to do? This negates the whole exercise!
You know, in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows
provincial governments to ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court and
do whatever they want anyway. What about something like that?
And a final comment, because it's priceless:
"If I were the United States Secretary of Virtual Worlds and I were
shopping around for an administration policy for USMud I would start
with something like this. If I were Joe Businessman, I might pay
lip-service to to this, but I sure as heck wouldn't put it in my user
contract and leave myself open to lawsuits."
There are a lot of interesting points raised above. One of the most
interesting is, why should an admin feel bound by the fact that others
have made an emotional investment in their work?
A sense of responsibility?
A coworker and I got into a argument over this. Let's say you publicly
say, "Hey, my empty lot is now open to the public, anyone can squat
there!" In the real world, you can actually get in trouble for not
providing adequate sanitation. You'd certainly be reviled as an
insensitive slob for kicking the squatters off. The sense here is that
by making the invitation, you are entering into a social contract with
the people who may or may not come by and use the empty lot.
We can argue endlessly whether this is fair or not. It's not, in my
opinion (but what is?). But it's still the case. If I personally
invite people to squat in my empty lot and then some of them die
because I failed to cover the open mineshaft, well, I'd feel a sense
of responsibility. It'd sure be nice not to, but I will because I have
developed a certain level of personal ethics that entail feeling that
way.
Plenty of mud admins do not have this particular ethic--nor am I
arguing that they must. But I think arguing whether they should is a
good debate to have.
I would argue that if your goal is to have a thriving empty lot that
develops into a small town, then you probably want to feel this sense
of responsibility, because the squatters are not likely to thrive
unless someone with authority over the lot does have that personal
ethic.
In the real world, we actually go further than that--we can be held
responsible for things that happen to trespassers on our property.
Now, you may have different intent for your virtual space--or your
property. You may have just invited people there for the evening. So
shutting down (as long as you announced it in advance) is still fine.
There was an expectation established, after all.
It's also been pointed out by my panel of mud-cum-rights experts that
technically, the property is intangible, which means we're actually in
the realm of Group Intellectual Property Law, which is a nebulous
construct even in the real world, much less the virtual. Here there be
dragons.
On the point that the document as a whole restricts admins too much in
managing the virtual spaces, I'd point out that having a clear code of
conduct for both players and admins has been shown to make running the
space go much smoother overall. Some argue that having unposted rules,
or relying purely on community norms, helps curb the idiots or
anarchists who find ways to skirt the posted rules. But we can
reference the Minnie case (and the Finn case come to think of it)
described in My Tiny Life for what can happen if unwritten rules are
used against such a person and then others start to fear that it could
be used against them with less cause. It's a very slippery slope.
Of course, having good tracking of patterns of behavior will mean that
these people will likely get taken care of anyway. People who break
any given rule repeatedly tend to break several of them repeatedly. So
concrete advice to admins is, have a history of infractions for every
avatar. It doesn't say anything in the document about not keeping
records, establishing more severe penalties for repeated infractions,
curtailing the freedoms of players with long admin records, etc.
Presumably someone who has a long admin record isn't going to be
considered a "good customer" anymore, right?
In a commercial endeavor, it makes sense to include money as a factor.
Good customers may well get permitted more infractions, because the
definition of an admin record is "things that cost us money (via admin
time spent)." As long as this is in the code of conduct, and applies
equally well to two different good customers who have paid the same
amount, then you're fulfilling the letter of the article.
I'd submit that the enhanced recordkeeping alone from doing that would
probably streamline your costs and make for better business decisions
when the time comes to punish someone.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about all the admin commentary on
the document is that the biggest concerns boil down to just a few
things:
I don't want to surrender control. I hate the notion of "rights" for
players.
I may not be making this sort of virtual world. Maybe it's a game.
(Which is largely easily answered by saying, "these rights apply out
of character, not in character, of course.")
By the way, I really don't want to surrender control.
The second is interesting. What about virtual meeting places for
businesses, or online universities. I'd argue that the need for rights
applies even more in such environments. But it is clear that there's a
sliding scale of applicability here. It raises the question of what a
mud is for, and what lifecycle it has. Common wisdom has it that "a
mud must grow, or stagnate and die." If so, then the common good means
anything that works against increasing the population of a mud.
However, a mud that grows into something which all of its members
despise is not developing towards the common good. So a better
definition might be, the common good is that which increases the
population of a mud without surrendering core social tenets or mores.
But that word "stagnate" is in that bit o' common wisdom too. So it
may be good for a mud to evolve its core social tenets in order to
adapt to the changing population. Free immigration means that this
will be accelerated--note that nowhere does the document say that you
can't simply not accept people into the mud who aren't aligned with
the mud's key social tenets.
Then there are the mud admins who don't give a flip about population
growth...
When all is said and done, though, I am clearly defending something
completely implausible on one key level:
as a document for players, it's a waste of time. They may trumpet it,
but who cares? They have zero power, and the document actually states
that several times over.
as a document for admins, however, it's pretty much all common sense.
Whether or not you believe in any of the principles that lead to
calling these articles rights, or whether or not you believe in rights
at all, I'd bet that you probably subscribe to most of these. In many
cases, out of sheer, ruthless practicality and business horse sense.
What happens if we remove the word rights, and in fact remove all the
high-flown language? If we just phrase this as suggestions instead? If
we just phrase it in modern English? I'll present just the plain
language version this time.
Advice to Virtual World Admins
Mud players are people. They don't stop being people when they log on.
Therefore they deserve to be treated like people. This means they have
the rights of people. By joining a mud, they join a community of
people. Rights arise from the community. But there's always someone
with their finger on the power switch. But he's part of the community
too, and should use his powers for the common good and the survival of
the community. The fact that you can easily move to another mud
doesn't mean that these rights go away.
Articles:
All mud players get the same rights. Special powers on the mud are
given out for the good of the mud, not because some guy is the friend
of a wizard.
Mud players are people, and therefore they have the rights of people:
liberty, property, security, and freedom from oppression.
Somewhere, there's a guy with his finger on the power button. What he
says ultimately goes. The mud players have the right to know the code
of conduct he is going to enforce over them, and what rules and
standards he's going to use when he makes a decision. Otherwise, they
are suckers and deserve what mistreatment they get.
You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others.
"Hurting others" needs to be defined in the code of conduct.
The code of conduct shouldn't be capricious and arbitrary. The rules
should be based on what is good for the mud (and for the good of the
mud's hardware, software, and data).
The code of conduct should evolve based on the way the mud culture
evolves, and players should get a say in how it evolves. The mud
admins get to write it however they want, but they have an obligation
to listen or else the players might leave.
You can't punish someone for something that isn't the code of conduct.
Abusing your wiz powers is a serious crime. If you are caught in a
violation of the code of conduct, fess up.
You can't punish someone in a way not in the code of conduct, and you
the admin don't get to rewrite the code of conduct after the fact to
make it legal. The only exception is action taken to keep the mud from
going "poof."
Players are innocent until proven guilty. Treat them decently until
guilt is proven.
As long as they aren't spamming or breaking the code of conduct,
players should be free to believe whatever they want.
As long as they aren't spamming or breaking the code of conduct,
players should be free to yell, chat, gossip, post, or otherwise say
whatever they want.
You're probably going to want admins. Admins get special powers for
the good of the mud, not to make them feel cool. They aren't an
entitlement because the imp is your cousin, and if you're not using
them for the good of all (which includes not using them at all and
shirking your admin duties) they should get yanked.
Players might have to pay to keep the mud running. They should know
how much they will have to pay beforehand. You shouldn't have
different pay scales for different players unless those other players
actually involve more costs. If you do let people buy greater
privileges, then you should allow ANY player to buy these privileges,
and not bar some people from it because you don't like them. Also,
payment doesn't mean they get to have godlike powers to fry other
people with--they still have to obey these rights.
Players have a right to know why the admins did things the way they
did, like why they playerwiped or moved an area or whatever. In
particular, why a given immort banned one guy for spamming but let the
other off the hook. (Note that given the circumstances, you may not be
able to do for legal reasons).
No exceptions to the code of conduct--it applies to everyone.
Don't playerwipe/data wipe unless the mud can't survive unless you do.
If you do have to wipe someone, make it up to them somehow.
Let people hang out wherever they want with whoever they want in the
mud, unless it's causing mud slowdowsns or something.
Players have a right to privacy. Don't snoop them or spy on them or
rifle through their mail unless you are investigating a code of
conduct violation.
There's probably stuff missing in this doc.
The interesting thing is that mud admins find the second doc much more
palatable. Phrased in this way, it's not an abrogation of their power.
It's concrete advice that will help you retain your playerbase. In
fact, some even said they'd be willing to sign to it as a
"declaration" because it would make them look good as admins to adhere
to such a standard. There are damn few justifiable reasons to deny any
of the things in the above version--and if you did, likely you'd be
considered a jerk for doing it--or a power-hungry admin with a god
complex (is there a difference?).
If admins see themselves as above the community, do they have any
responsibilities towards the community whatsoever?
If they do, can they be articulated?
If they can be articulated and generally agreed upon, are they
players' rights or are they merely good ethics on the part of a mud
administrator?
One camp is going to argue that it's their mud, by god, and therefore
they have the right to do whatever they want with it (and with the
people in it). Some might temper this by saying that they don't have
the right to violate RL law in the process, but I think a sizable
faction would argue that even that doesn't curtail their power in any
way.
Another camp is going to argue that with great power comes great
responsibility, a la Spiderman. And that clear guidelines and the rule
of law is the only way to handle a responsibility of such magnitude.
Both sides will agree that they still have their finger on the power
button, and that this changes the landscape of "rights" considerably.
And if you do feel that you are ethically bound to act responsibly,
then you may have to violate some of your ethical principles in order
to keep the mud running.
And if it's a commercial environment:
Is it bad business to be a part of the community?
Is it bad business NOT to be?
This is one of the self-contradictions built into the document. The
logic goes like this:
Of paramount importance is the survival of the community.
Somebody who has his finger on the power switch can make the community
go poof.
Ergo, keeping this guy happy is of paramount importance.
But if keeping him happy means letting him psychologically torture
you, well, that means the community isn't likely to survive.
And survival of the community is of paramount importance...
The logical answer is for the community to move wholesale--in essence,
picking another guy with a power switch who hopefully is made happy by
other sorts of pleasures. Virtual communities often do this, as we
have seen. And they always seem to feel that they were betrayed by the
previous admin--which indicates the self-assignation of a right by the
community.
The irony is that it's all probably moot. The reason why players hold
admins to this standard is because they have assumed that this
standard is what should be there regardless. In other words, the
advice works because it's what players expect and say they want. Which
is no different from self-affirmed rights. This is probably why
players scream that their rights have been violated when one of the
above articles is violated (even if the admins are not signatories to
any such document).
So the real point of a document like this would be to see how many
admins would sign, not how many players. As an admin, yes, I'd
probably sign, in the sense that I'd agree that these are solid
administrative principles in terms of practical effect.
The question then becomes, if we subscribe in terms of practical
effect, and as long as there are sufficient loopholes present that we
can exercise power when we need to, who cares whether players think
these are rights, laws, doohickeys, or power fantasies? (Welcome to
the Machiavellian world of player relations!)
Why do you want freedom to do things that are bad admin or business
practice? (even considering that "freedom" and so on are total mirages
in this whole situation...)
Especially since "rights" in the real world already have zero power?
(Note that I am not suggesting that all the muds or commercial
endeavors should run out and implement this list of "rights," nor am I
suggesting that if they don't that they are run by power-hungry
maniacs. This is too complex an issue to reduce to that level.)
The last step that would be required to actually make such a document
into a Bill of Rights for players would be for it to be codified into
"law," (which is probablt a Code of Conduct or Terms of Service
agreement signed by all players, account holders, and admins) and thus
be something that admins would be bound to. Admins are, by and large,
not going to do this, even though some of the commercial MMORPG
companies do require their game masters to sign documents saying that
they will behave in a manner surprisingly similar to what the document
espouses. But there's an interesting forward-thinking pie-in-the-sky
reason for admins to contemplate doing so someday...
Someday there won't be any admins. Someday it's gonna be your bank
records and your grocery shopping and your credit report and yes, your
virtual homepage with data that exists nowhere else. Someday it's
gonna be Snow Crash and Neuromancer and Otherland all wrapped up into
one, and it may be a little harder to write to Customer Service. Your
avatar profile might be your credit record and your resume and your
academic transcript, as well as your XP earned.
On the day that happens, I bet we'll all wish we had a few more rights
in the face of a very large, distributed server, anarchic, virtual
world where it might be very very hard to move to a different service
provider. Heck, I would bet that those folks who plan to play
Bioware's forthcoming Neverwinter Nights might very well want their
admins to sign such a doc. The future is already almost here.
So in the end, all the Declaration of the Rights of Avatars is, is a
useful tool for players and admins alike: admins who don't know what
they are doing can use it as a blueprint, and players can use it to
evaluate mud administrations in search of one they like.
So yeah. I'm not seriously proposing that we declare the rights of
avatars. The doc is, as has been shown, riddled with gotchas and
logical holes. It's a hypothetical exercise.
For now.
This essay could not have been written without the help of:
Christopher Allen
Paul Schwanz
David Bennett
John Bertoglio
Par Winzell
Eli Stevens
Philip Lenhardt
Erik Jarvi
Justin Randall
and most especially:
Geoffrey A. MacDougall
Jon A. Lambert
Matt Mihaly
Jeff Freeman
Travis S. Casey
Jame Scholl
and extra especially Kristen Koster, who helped draft the original
version of the Declaration.
The original thread on Declaring the Rights of Avatars can be found at
the MUD-Dev Archives.
- Raph Koster
August 27th, 2000
shade
must admit I'm a little tired, but I thought this might get things going
well, assuming I manage to get a response from people other then the
'foad'ers.
Raph Koster <rko...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> There's at least one theory of rights which says that rights aren't
> "granted" by anyone. They arise because the populace decides to grant
> them to themselves. Under this logic, the folks who rose up in France
> weren't looking for some king with a soon-to-be-foreshortened head to
> tell them, "You've got the right to live your lives freely." They told
> themselves that they had that right, and because they had said so, it
> was so.
Hardly. It was only so because they fought for it (not always in the
most civilized fashion, to be sure, but it did produce something better
then what was before).
> The flip side of this is that unless you continually fight to
> make that claim true, then it won't stick.
In many cases, you've got to get it to be there to begin with. That, I
would think, is the most difficult thing. Maintaining rights can be
difficult as well to be sure but I would think it's much easier to do
this then trying to instate rights that currently don't exist.
> The battleground is not a
> military one: it's a perception one
Many rights are only achieved via militaristic means. However, I
certainly believe that, now more then ever, the pen (or electronic
equivalent) is mightier then the sword.
> as long as everyone is convinced
> that people have rights, they do.
If there was some omnipotent power that could take away our rights, we
could think that we had every right we wanted, but that wouldn't mean
that we wouldn't be dissolved into our component parts if we dared
question the one's orders. In much of the world, the 'unalienable
rights' that the U.N. goes on about don't exist for many people. I think
we should make a strong difference between what we believe people's
rights should be and what rights they actually have.
> They're inalienable only as long as
> only a minority does the, uh, aliening.
I think you're saying that as long as more people think people should
have certain rights, we're homefree. From what I've seen of the world,
however, it's more that it's certain minorities in power who do most of
the suppressing of rights people should have.
> And, of course, especially as
> long as they are enshrined in some sort of law. In other words, the
> guys in charge sign away a chunk of power, in writing, that the
> populace expects them to sign away.
Laws can and are broken worldwide, and not just by anti government
types. Finally, more important then laws, which can never be prepared
for every possible circumstance, are capable and powerful
lawmakers/lawchangers, with a system in place to make sure that they
have the power to enforce those laws.
> There's another theory of rights which holds them to be intrinsic to
> people. Under this far more rigid standard, all those cultures which
> fail to grant them are benighted bastions of savagery.
A culture is a pretty big thing. I think that most people of any nation
would prefer to have perhaps their political leaders called savage, but
I doubt most people would like their nation being called a 'bastion of
savagery', even if they're on the short end of the stick.
> The harder part
> here is agreeing on what rights are intrinsic to all people
> everywhere-cultural differences tend to make that hard.
Indeed. Just look at the trouble I got into in my efforts to make
universal rights for avatar cybersexual activity (one can certainly say
that my past doesn't help persuade people and, indeed, many people tend
to focus on it alone, ignoring my points altogether).
> Many mud admins are of the belief that their muds are their private
> playgrounds. That they have discretion on who enters and who gets to
> stay.
Provided that they stay close enough to the societal bounds of their
particular society. If they don't, they'd be playing on shaky ground. An
excellent example of this is my own mud: because of my cybersex license
idea, combined with my past, very few mud hosts will host me. I've found
that the cybersex license is truly not the real sticking point; I've yet
to meet a mud host who truly had any serious objection to the idea. The
only mud that actually objected to it from the start was one who simply
didn't want to have any trouble with any laws. As you may know, the U.S.
and Canada have laws regarding online 'pornography'. I had thought that
pornography was essentially limited to pictures (unmoving or moving) and
sound. I found out much to my dismay that it in fact includes literature
as well. The whole thing is, in truth, a stack of cards simply waiting
to be blown over. Take, for example, Canada. In most of Canada (B.C.
seems to have gone rogue with a judge's decision and Quebec has followed
its own rules for some time now), a person as young as 12 can engage in
actual sex, forget about something as comparitively trivial as cybersex.
And yet, that same 12 year old isn't allowed to read literature of an
erotic nature. I firmly believe that the only reason that this has
remained in effect for so long is because so few charges have been laid
upon people who have, say, sold a novel with erotic literature to a
child. I believe that here in Ontario, children can indeed buy just such
novels in most convenience stores and it doesn't create a fuss, but I'm
not sure.
There is much more friction over picturial magazines. This does follow
the 18+ rule a little more strictly, but from my own experience as to
the laxness of the issue (I don't ever remember being asked for id), it
appears that most small stores where that type of thing is sold will
simply sell it to you if you look 18+. They may even stretch things a
little. There was a recent campaign to punish store owners if they sold
cigarettes to minors, but I haven't heard anything similar in terms of
erotic pictorial magazines. Someone may notice here that I haven't used
the word 'pornographic' throughout this paragraph. The reason is because
of the word itself; it seems that the term itself has been given a
certain type of image in many people's minds; things like 'indecent' or
'lewd', 'exploitative' or 'sinful'. I've heard the term 'indecent' and
'lewd' and 'sinful' used too many times by people who I think would do
quite well having a more open mind, so I won't go into those. As to
exploitative, sadly, there's no getting around the fact that, indeed,
some magazines are just that, although I would think that a fair amount
of pornography stars are certainly in on that action. I've done a fair
amount of thinking about it and I've come to the conclusion that the
whole reason that we have such a thriving pornography industry is
because of the dualistic culture we reside in.
It's a culture where we can say that at 18, 'something' happens and all
of a sudden, an 'innocent' girl can see and do just about anything she
wants sexually (I refrain from putting in boy because I've seen there to
be a strong double standard here, which is understandable; boys can't
get pregnant). Ofcourse, there still is the issue that some sexual acts
are illegal in certain U.S. states, such as anal sex. I've found it
quite amusing to note that there are also a preponderance of
pornographic web sites which specialize in anal sex; call it the
underground backlash. I myself am not fond of the anal sex idea, but
then, I tend to wish to avoid things like pain, something which a fair
amount of this (dare I say puritanical?) society actually likes, as
demonstrated by the fairly strong bdsm community.
It's a culture where, because we insist that it's 'bad' for people under
an arbitrary age to learn about sexual things, to in all truth, instil a
strong fear in them about it, that we have, in my opinion, so many
horror movies and even violent shows like wrestling, that combine
sexuality with fear and violence.
Regarding the age that they should be 'ready', that age is clearly under
dispute, but you won't see that dispute here, as most people are too
interested in simply trying to insult me to death to leave this place.
Many seem to arrogantly believe that simply because they're a parent,
that they alone should 'know' when their child is ready. Meanwhile, they
may in fact be suffering from sexual repressions themselves and not even
be aware of the fact. One thing's for sure; we certainly won't find out
just how well they know their children until they start saying what they
plan on teaching them and when, but I don't expect this place to fill
with that type of discussion.
> That they can choose to eject someone on any grounds whatsoever,
> can delete a character at a whim, can play favorites and choose to
> grant administrative favors to their friends. Even in pay-for-play
> circles, it is always made very clear who owns the data, who has to
> sign Terms of Service, etc. There's a bunch of this that is
> antithetical to the notion of rights.
I agree with all of the above except for 2 things which are more
ambiguous: who owns the data and terms of service. What about the
concept of mutual ownership? On my mud, if someone were to say
something, it would be logged, as is everything else. I wouldn't want to
have to give up this data if a user didn't want it on my hard drive; it
might be part of something I might want to investigate, in the event
that someone were to do something I didn't want them to, or even to be
used as evidence for some trial, either online or (hopefully not but
possible) offline. By the same token, however, I wouldn't dream of
claiming exclusive ownership over what they themselves said. Not that
that means that I should have to provide a log of what they said on
demand; I just mean that, provided that they've recorded their own
conversation or I don't mind giving them the log of their words, they
can feel free to use it in whatever fashion they choose.
> Now, it's pretty clear that there are some rights which leak over from
> the real world into the virtual. If your local pay-for-play mud
> operator isn't providing adequate service, you can report them to the
> Better Business Bureau
I think reporting them to newsgroups and/or the mud connector would get
better results, chuckle :-p.
> there are probably sexual discrimination laws
> and harassment laws and slander laws that apply equally well in both
> kinds of space.
From everything I've heard, this is still largely untested ground. I can
see this working in pay-to-play ones, because you could lose an
investment in cash if you're too emotionally distressed to play the
game, but I think it'd be harder to argue one's case on a free mud.
> But rights (and much less legislation) have not caught
> up to the notion of virtual spaces very well. Which makes for an
> interesting thought experiment.
Indeed it does..
Anyway, as to your declaration of rights, I think things like "in order
that this declaration may
continually remind those who hold power over virtual spaces and the
avatars contained therein of their duties and responsibilities" is going
just a -tad- too far at present. Most people aren't mavericks like me;
that is, they'll follow the conventions of society, to a point, even if
that point is simply to keep one's ideas in the privacy of one's own
mud. It's certainly true that a -few- players -may- bring up any
complaints they have of the mud on to a public forum, but the truth is,
it happens relatively rarely and most people aren't interested in
campaigning to bring a mud down.
> avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online
> medium, and that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions
> should be considered to be as valid as the utterances, actions,
> thoughts, and emotions of people in any other forum, venue, location,
> or space.
I don't think we have to worry so much about whether something is valid
or not. I think we have to worry far more of whether people are able to
express their opinions, valid or otherwise, online. From my own
experience running a bbs a long time ago, I found that when you own a
virtual environment, it can be an incredibly personal thing. I had
thought that I would be able to withstand people swearing at each other,
but the first time someone did it, I practically immediately deleted the
post where they did so. It was then that I realized that I wasn't going
to be happy unless I was allowed to exert atleast that amount of control
over the content in my virtual environment. However, it's one thing to
essentially not allow people to swear at each other. It's quite another
when you don't allow them to disagree with you, or atleast to disagree
with you for a certain amount of time. I sincerely believe that I could
manage someone disagreeing with me and voicing that disagreement with me
on my mud ad infinitum, provided that it was all done in a civilized,
non swearing manner. Ofcourse, there are always the little naggers that
can annoy; is 'shit' a swear word, if it's said for feces? I don't think
so. How about "I don't give a sh*t!". I might not respond to someone who
wrote me that, even if it had the * on it. But if someone were to say
'you sh*t faced fool', that would be classified as swearing. Still, what
to do with individuals who do these types of things? If they do it to
each other and don't mind, should I really object? I don't think so;
it'd have to go a fair amount further then that. But if someone was
addressing -me- like that on my own mud.. again, it would still depend
on things such as 'how good a friend is this?'. It would depend on such
a thing because, depending on how good a friend they are, I would or
wouldn't accept the comment. Ultimately, I think there are few mud
admins who haven't decided to boot -someone-. I'm certainly no
exception; I banned a few people who seemed hell bent on simply
insulting me and showed no interest in actually forming part of the
community of my mud.
> That the well-established rights of man approved by the
> National Assembly of France on August 26th of 1789 do therefore apply
> to avatars in full measure saving only the aspects of said rights that
> do not pertain in a virtual space or which must be abrogated in order
> to ensure the continued existence of the space in question.
What are these well established rights of this French Assembly?
> That by
> the act of affirming membership in the community within the virtual
> space, the avatars form a social contract with the community, forming
> a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose rights and
> concomitant restrictions upon their behavior.
I think using the 'must' word at this stage is a bit premature; many mud
admins still run with the 'I can do whatever I want on my mud' type
deal. I like the may part though :-p.
> That the nature of
> virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical law, always be a
> higher power or administrator who maintains the space and has complete
> power over all participants
No administrator has complete power over anyone on their mud, assuming
that they only have strong influence on the mud and not offline. Unlike
some, I don't separate a person into online and offline parts. The very
idea of an avatar comes with the idea that they have an offline
component. I do agree, however, that I have yet to see a mud that
doesn't require someone or some people to head it; in truth, I have yet
to see a mud that truly has more then one head; that is, that there's
more then one person who is equally powerful on the mud.
> That the ease of moving between virtual
> spaces and the potential transience of the community do not limit or
> reduce the level of emotional and social involvement that avatars may
> have with the community, and that therefore the ease of moving between
> virtual spaces and the potential transience of the community do not in
> any way limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the
> alleged grounds that avatars can always simply leave.
Very well said :-), although you're building on your assumption that the
rights, which haven't really be specified yet (I don't think too many
people know of the rights granted French citizens way back in 1789 :-p)
are in place; I think that will have to be worked out first. Although
you never denied it, I'd like to point out that it could be argued that
one can't have as many emotional attachments online as one can have
offline. However, even if this is true, I think it can be safely said
that one can get sufficiently emotionally involved online to merit the
insertion of player rights.
> Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
> privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based
> on whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power.
That would be a good ideal anyway.
> Those who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only
> the rights of normal avatars.
What do you mean by 'ordinary' here? Also, what rights are removed or
gained by not being ordinary? I'm guessing you're saying that if someone
doesn't abide by the rules, then they have certain rights removed, such
as the 'right' (I don't think we can consider being on a mud a right
yet) to be on a mud?.
> The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry,
> from which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is
> the right to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless,
> soulless puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
> inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property,
> security, and resistance to oppression.
If we were to truly play this way, then pking wouldn't be permitted (it
infringes on people's rights to property). Some muds have the option of
either being pkable/able to pk or not, while still others (especially
talker types such as many moos) don't have pking as an option at all.
I'd be interested in knowing where you stand on this. As for resistance
to oppression, I definitely think that should be a right, but the
problem mainly lies in determining what is, and what isn't, just.
> The principle of all sovereignty in a virtual space resides in the
> inalterable fact that somewhere there resides an individual who
> controls the hardware on which the virtual space is running, and the
> software with which it is created, and the database which makes up its
> existence. However, the body populace has the right to know and demand
> the enforcement of the standards by which this individual uses this
> power over the community, as authority must proceed from the
> community; a community that does not know the standards by which the
> administrators use their power is a community which permits its
> administrators to have no standards, and is therefore a community
> (that abets) tyranny.
I wouldn't put it that way. After all, if the community is new, it may
not yet have even thought about standards and rules much. It's only when
there's basically a 'do not question' or atleast a 'do not question too
much' rule that we get the abetting I'd think. It's certainly true that
tyrant/dictator directed muds would probably have what you have above in
mind, but it's also possible that they could have the rules very clearly
in place. Ofcourse, perhaps you mean to imply that the standards are the
ones in the French Constitution..
> Liberty consists of the freedom to do anything which injures no one
> else including the weal of the community as a whole and as an entity
> instantiated on hardware and by software; the exercise of the natural
> rights of avatars are therefore limited solely by the rights of other
> avatars sharing the same space and participating in the same
> community. These limits can only be determined by a clear code of
> conduct.
Figuring out what is and isn't injurous will certainly be a big thing. I
would argue that pking is many times injurious, but even on my own mud,
I never actually said that I wouldn't allow it to happen regardless of
whether both parties consented to a cyberdual to the cyberdeath of some
sort.
I always find it ironic that cybersex is seen as something that is
potentially far more dangerous then cyberkilling each other, but there
you have it.
> The security of the rights of avatars requires the existence of
> avatars with special powers and privileges, who are empowered to
> enforce the provisions of the code of conduct. These powers and
> privileges are therefore granted for the good of all and not for the
> personal advantage of those to whom they shall be entrusted. These
> powers and privileges are also therefore not an entitlement, and can
> and should be removed in any instance where they are no longer used
> for the good of all, even if the offense is merely inactivity.
I can agree to that, if only because, say, a bunch of inactive wizards
just adds too much clutter to the list (they can be added back if they
show up again).
> A common contribution may, at the discretion of the individual who
> maintains the hardware, the software, and the data that make up the
> virtual space, be required in order to maintain the existence of
> avatars who enforce the code of conduct and to maintain the hardware
> and the software and the continued existence of the virtual space.
> Avatars have the right to know the nature and amount of the
> contribution in advance, and said required contribution should be
> equitably distributed among all the citizens without regard to their
> social position; special rights and privileges shall never pertain to
> the avatar who contributes more except insofar as the special powers
> and privileges require greater resources from the hardware, software,
> or data store, and would not be possible save for the resources
> obtainable with the contribution; and as long as any and all avatars
> are able to make this contribution and therefore gain the powers and
> privileges if they so choose.
On many pay muds, forget about staff paying for the privilege of being
on; they are actually paid to help others on the system. I don't see
anything wrong with this and I don't think you do either, but the
wording above seems to suggest that you would. Secondly, I don't think
any amount of money should be able to grant certain positions on a mud.
I think that that should be decided based on how well an avatar would
mesh with the administrators and players on the mud. Money could be a
consideration I'd think, however, as you mentioned with the idea that
significant contributions can enable certain resources to be around to
begin with.
> The community has the right to require of every administrator or
> individual with special powers and privileges granted for the purpose
> of administration, an account of his administration.
That -sounds- good.. although I'd be interested in knowing what you mean
by account.
> A virtual community in which the observance of the code of conduct is
> not assured and universal, nor the separation of powers defined, has
> no constitution at all.
That doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be that in that type of
situation, the constitution would just need work, not that it's non
existent.
> Avatars have the right to be secure in their persons, communications,
> designated private spaces, and effects, against unreasonable snooping,
> eavesdropping, searching and seizures, no activity pertaining thereto
> shall be undertaken by administrators save with probable cause
> supported by affirmation, particularly describing the goal of said
> investigations.
Defining what's reasonable will certainly be a challenge I think.
There's a very good reason for logging -everything- I'd think. That
reason being that if someone accuses someone of saying or doing
something online that was against the rules, there's nothing like being
able to check the logs and see if the event did or didn't occur. On my
own mud, only administrators are allowed to see the logs and I could
certainly see the idea of having very stringent rules about when they
can access such material on people who haven't given their consent (I
personally stated that any admin can look at any part of my own log in
the past).
> But there's also some other folks who think that this exercise is
> plain dangerous. As an example, let me take a co-worker of mine to
> whom I showed an early draft. He pointed out that virtual world
> servers run on somebody's hardware. And that most declarations of
> rights give rights over personal property. By declaring that avatars
> have rights, we're abrogating that administrator's right to personal
> property.
I think that it would be unfair to truly think of a mud as one person's
personal property. While they may have supplied the hardware, software
or atleast the money to rent out such things, this doesn't mean that the
content that is provided free of charge by the users should be seen as
their personal property, atleast in every sense. I personally like the
idea of having avatar rights and I own my own mud.
> Others point out that it's superfluous. After all, if virtual worlds
> are just extensions of the real world, then surely all the rights we
> already have apply?
Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people think of muds and
the phys side world as completely different entities (I'm not of that
persuasion, but I certainly think that there are some differences;
getting cyberkilled or engaging in cybersexual activity is quite
different from their offline equivalents).
> What about if the virtual space in question is a game? Doesn't it, by
> its nature, obviate some of these rights?
You could say that life is a game (there are certainly rules in
society); that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have rights.
> And the biggie: what if you don't accept the basic premises in the
> prefatory paragraphs?
>
> And that's where it gets interesting: in the details. I basically
> posted the document to a mailing list with a collection of the
> smartest virtual world admins and designers I know. Here's some of the
> various comments from admins from various walks of life, who got to
> see the original draft of this document (names hidden to protect the
> innocent, and remarks vastly paraphrased, because many of the
> objections were hypothetical ones).
>
> A Declaration of the Rights of Avatars Rights of avatars? Why not of
> "chess pieces"? Maybe the players have rights, but avatars are just
> representations.
Why not call it player rights then? If someone broke the rules in chess,
that wouldn't be fair either.
> When a time comes that new modes and venues exist for communities, and
> said modes are different enough from the existing ones that question
> arises as to the applicability of past custom and law; Come now,
> we're not that beyond current law, are we?
> It's been convincingly argued (by Dr. Barry Wellman among others) that
> the only difference that the Internet makes to communities is the
> speed of information transmission. So what's really new here?
You can't do a lot of things online that you can do offline. Tactile and
olfactory sensations are still generally beyond the online world.
> and when said venues have become a forum for interaction and society
> for the general public regardless of the intent of the creators of
> said venue; and at a time when said communities and spaces are rising
> in popularity and are now widely exploited for commercial gain; it
> behooves those involved in said communities and venues to affirm and
> declare the inalienable rights of the members of said communities.
> Therefore herein have been set forth those rights which are
> inalienable rights of the inhabitants of virtual spaces of all sorts,
> in their form henceforth referred to as avatars, in order that this
> declaration may continually remind those who hold power over virtual
> spaces and the avatars contained therein of their duties and
> responsibilities; in order that the forms of administration of a
> virtual space may be at any time compared to that of other virtual
> spaces; and in order that the grievances of players may hereafter be
> judged against the explicit rights set forth, to better govern the
> virtual space and improve the general welfare and happiness of all.
>
> Poppycock. I have not signed any agreement to keep the mud running,
> and I have no responsibility towards the players. In fact, I might
> have made them sign an agreement saying so!
Legally speaking, an admins can generally do whatever they want with
their muds and their mud players. Ethically speaking, I would argue that
if one is going to run a mud with players other then oneself, one should
always keep their wishes in mind, unless it's clear that they don't care
about one's own wishes.
> What if the players don't want to accept their rights?
If they don't want to accept them, then there can be a discussion as to
why they don't want them. It would be nice to hear an example of an
instance where a player wouldn't -want- a right ofcourse :-).
> If admins see themselves as above the community, rather than part of
> it, this whole thing is for nothing.
Regardless of how admins see themselves, I would argue that they're very
much a part of the community; they generally take to make the most
important decisions for the community, so I believe that the role of
community leader is pretty much unavoidable.
> Therefore this document holds the following truths to be self-evident:
> That avatars are the manifestation of actual people in an online
> medium, and that their utterances, actions, thoughts, and emotions
> should be considered to be as valid as the utterances, actions,
> thoughts, and emotions of people in any other forum, venue, location,
> or space.
>
> Plainly incorrect; for one thing, the legal standards for
> expression in other media vary wildly from country to country and, in
> fact, from medium to medium. Bandwidth is arguably a commodity rare
> enough to fall under the same sort of regulation as the FCC in the US
> imposes upon use of the airwaves; certainly my bandwidth is a precious
> resource.
>
> Doesn't the fact that we have psychological disinhibition in virtual
> spaces argue against this?
>
> There's no consequences to online actions, and there are to real world
> actions.
There are certainly consequences to online actions. Being banned from a
mud, for instance.
> In fact, you could arguably consider online actions merely
> speech, and therefore bound by those standards.
Freedom of speech is pretty important in our society. People talking to
each other can form a community and I think that few people would argue
that many muds are communities. I think that communities should have
some rights. I also think that players will eventually gravitate to muds
that where they have rights, however. Ultimately, players have
practically as much say as admins as to how to run muds, because they
can vote with their feet.
> Don't tell me that you are going to consider AI avatars people too.
Not people, but it's certainly conceivable that AI can one day reach a
point where we might consider them just as precious as a person. This
day may be way after anyone here is alive, but I think it may be
interesting to see just how far AI can get even within our own
lifetimes.
> That by the act of affirming membership in the community within the
> virtual space, the avatars form a social contract with the community,
> forming a populace which may and must self-affirm and self-impose
> rights and concomitant restrictions upon their behavior. I don't
> believe in the notion of a social contract. Rights are granted
> explicitly by those in power.
>
> How do you affirm membership in a free text mud anyway?
Log in, get a character, you're a member.
> That the nature of virtual spaces is such that there must, by physical
> law, always be a higher power or administrator who maintains the space
> and has complete power over all participants, but who is undeniably
> part of the community formed within the space and who must therefore
> take action in accord with that which benefits the space as well as
> the participants, and who therefore also has the rights of avatars and
> may have other rights as well.
>
> In many cases, the admins and the
> people with fingers on the power switch aren't the same people. What
> do you do then?
This passage lost me. I'm somewhat lost as to what the original point
was..
> That the ease of moving between virtual spaces and the potential
> transience of the community do not limit or reduce the level of
> emotional and social involvement that avatars may have with the
> community, and that therefore the ease of moving between virtual
> spaces and the potential transience of the community do not in any way
> limit, curtail, or remove these rights from avatars on the alleged
> grounds that avatars can always simply leave.
>
> "Why should the creator
> of an online community -- especially one which is created explicitly
> for the purpose of entertainment -- be bound to do certain things
> simply because others have chosen to make an emotional or social
> investment in his/her construct?" (A direct quote).
Personally, I think that this should just be a matter of ethics, not of
legal obligation. I think that mud admins should ethically be bound to
do the best for their players because we ourselves would like ourselves
to be treated as nice as possible ourselves.
> Articles:
> 1. Avatars are created free and equal in rights. Special powers or
> privileges shall be founded solely on the common good, and not based
> on whim, favoritism, nepotism, or the caprice of those who hold power.
> Those who act as ordinary avatars within the space shall all have only
> the rights of normal avatars.
>
> You know, we deny avatars the right to exist pre-emptively sometimes,
> by not approving them as new players.
I think mud admins should be allowed to deny certain new players, for a
few reasons:
1- if they're coming in from a site that is known to have problem
players.
2- If they find the name to be offensive (ofcourse, people may differ on
what should be deemed offensive).
> Are you arguing that inequality within society is only justified if it
> improves the standing of the lowest common denominator? How Rawlsian.
I don't understand this question at all..
> 2. The aim of virtual communities is the common good of its citizenry,
> from which arise the rights of avatars. Foremost among these rights is
> the right to be treated as people and not as disembodied, meaningless,
> soulless puppets. Inherent in this right are therefore the natural and
> inalienable rights of man. These rights are liberty, property,
> security, and resistance to oppression.
>
> There are literally muds out
> there intended for psychological experimentation. Muds where they ask
> for people banned elsewhere so they can test-to-destruction new game
> notions. What about those?
Personally, I think that the above mentioned rights shouldn't be taken
away, if not justified anyway. Oppression seems to by its very
definition be something that should never be had (unjustly putting
people down), but I would certainly think that there should be instances
where liberty, property and security may need to be curtailed.
> What about orcs storming in and oppressing the players? Or NPC
> thieves?
These 2 categories aren't ones that I particularly like myself; they
wouldn't fit into my ethical picture and perhaps not the ethical picture
of Raff, but for those who like that type of thing, there's certainly a
fair amount of muds out there with them I'd think..
> You just defined "the aim of virtual communities." That's not
> liberating, that's severely limiting! The beauty of virtual
> communities is their ability to be whatever we want them to be.
At one point, I think we're going to want to agree as to some basic
things that any good community would want. I don't see it as limiting
atleast in this framework, because there's still plenty of room to be
different from mud to mud, while assuring that the best qualities are
around (naturally, some may not agree, as with those that like thieving
npcs, etc.)
> What if I want you to treat me like a dog?
Chuckle :-p.
> Property, freedom from oppression--these are pretty Western rights,
> you know. Are we dragging Western ideology into primacy in the virtual
> setting here?
Can you tell me -one- culture where the people like being oppressed? Or
one where the people don't want property of any sort, shared or
otherwise?
> Proudhon in his classic essay "What is Property? An Inquiry into the
> Principles of Right and Government" argues that property is inimical
> to liberty, you know. (No, I didn't.)
I'd like to see that argument..
Lots more good points, but I'm skipping most because I thought I'd just
do this much, for now atleast.
> In France the burden of proof rests on the accused, not the accuser.
> This is very North American.
There are some North American traits that I think the world should adopt
(such as innocent until proven guilty).
> "If I were the United States Secretary of Virtual Worlds and I were
> shopping around for an administration policy for USMud I would start
> with something like this. If I were Joe Businessman, I might pay
> lip-service to to this, but I sure as heck wouldn't put it in my user
> contract and leave myself open to lawsuits."
Some businessmen think a fair amount about ethics as well as
liabilities. And ultimately, thinking ethically to atleast some degree
will benefit businessmen.
> A coworker and I got into a argument over this. Let's say you publicly
> say, "Hey, my empty lot is now open to the public, anyone can squat
> there!" In the real world, you can actually get in trouble for not
> providing adequate sanitation. You'd certainly be reviled as an
> insensitive slob for kicking the squatters off. The sense here is that
> by making the invitation, you are entering into a social contract with
> the people who may or may not come by and use the empty lot.
>
> We can argue endlessly whether this is fair or not. It's not, in my
> opinion (but what is?). But it's still the case. If I personally
> invite people to squat in my empty lot and then some of them die
> because I failed to cover the open mineshaft, well, I'd feel a sense
> of responsibility. It'd sure be nice not to, but I will because I have
> developed a certain level of personal ethics that entail feeling that
> way.
From each according to ability, to each according to need, as the old
socialist (or was it communist?) motto went. If you can only reasonably
provide a lot, it would certainly be unfair that you should have to
provide more. I don't think I could ever really mesh with people who've
got a preponderance of wealth; the idea of unnecessary greed simply
seems to come to mind..
> Somewhere, there's a guy with his finger on the power button. What he
> says ultimately goes. The mud players have the right to know the code
> of conduct he is going to enforce over them, and what rules and
> standards he's going to use when he makes a decision. Otherwise, they
> are suckers and deserve what mistreatment they get.
I wouldn't put it that way. But atleast knowing the rules is nice.
> Players have a right to know why the admins did things the way they
> did, like why they playerwiped or moved an area or whatever. In
> particular, why a given immort banned one guy for spamming but let the
> other off the hook. (Note that given the circumstances, you may not be
> able to do for legal reasons).
What type of legal reasons? Anyway, I agree with the rest.
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others.
> "Hurting others" needs to be defined in the code of conduct.
Agreed; I can't really see definining that as possible in the forseeable
future. It'll basically have to be decided by admins as they go along.
> In a commercial endeavor, it makes sense to include money as a factor.
> Good customers may well get permitted more infractions, because the
> definition of an admin record is "things that cost us money (via admin
> time spent)."
Agreed.
> Someday there won't be any admins.
I can't see that..
> Someday it's gonna be your bank
> records and your grocery shopping and your credit report and yes, your
> virtual homepage with data that exists nowhere else. Someday it's
> gonna be Snow Crash and Neuromancer and Otherland all wrapped up into
> one, and it may be a little harder to write to Customer Service. Your
> avatar profile might be your credit record and your resume and your
> academic transcript, as well as your XP earned.
I can hardly wait ;-).
> On the day that happens, I bet we'll all wish we had a few more rights
> in the face of a very large, distributed server, anarchic, virtual
> world where it might be very very hard to move to a different service
> provider.
This is only a problem if you make such a distinct separation between
the offline and the online world. If you think of life as the only
'service provider', then whether the services provided grow to be
increasingly online is truly only a detail.
> So in the end, all the Declaration of the Rights of Avatars is, is a
> useful tool for players and admins alike: admins who don't know what
> they are doing can use it as a blueprint, and players can use it to
> evaluate mud administrations in search of one they like.
Yep.
> So yeah. I'm not seriously proposing that we declare the rights of
> avatars. The doc is, as has been shown, riddled with gotchas and
> logical holes.
I didn't see that many (but yes, I did skip a big chunk of the
responses).
> It's a hypothetical exercise.
>
> For now.
I don't see all that much hypothetical about it from where I'm standing.
Assuming that my mud does run for much longer, I very well may be
looking back at it to see if I can glean any information on how to deal
with a certain type of problem I have on it.
--
shade
email address is: sha...@writeme.com
Whoodley
Shadebane
Alastair
rko...@austin.rr.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
[snip]
I won't comment specifically on the issue, but here are my own
conservative thoughts on the matter (I'm not addressing pay-to-play
issues):
Prior to a player's bill of right, the following absolute and universal
axiom has to be formulated and understood:
"Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to do
whatever he likes with it."
This simple "Axiom of Mudding" already situates player rights not in
the realm of democratical thinking, but in the one of (*gasp!*)
monarchy. Now people may want to challenge that axiom, but it is my
firm conviction that if the above is not true and absolute, then nobody
would start running a MUD at all.
That being said, of course, if having a viable, equalitarian and just
virtual community on the MUD participates to any MUD's original
implementator (I'll stick to name him imp from now, still in the
understanding that he's the one who started it all) notion of
enjoyment, all the better for the players.
Moving from here, though, a reasonable imp will consider granting
certain basic rights to his players (if he doesn't, one wonders why he
runs a MUD instead of fiddling with a roguelike game's code).
We could indeed from here formulate a list of avatar rights. Here's my
proposal, stemming from the "Axiom of Mudding":
1. There are three kinds of avatars: the mortal ones, the immortal ones
and the imp. All mortal avatars get the same rights. Immortal avatars
are awarded additional rights, duties and privileges at the discretion
of the imp or those he has appointed to second him in this task. The
imp (or his appointed delegates) is an absolute monarch over all other
avatars.
2. The imp or his delegates are free to appoint any mortals to immortal
status on whatever criteria they see fit.
3. All avatars are human beings. As such, they may expect to be treated
on a good faith basis.
4. All avatars have the right to be informed about the local code of
conduct. Ideally, the code of conduct shall be written. However, some
local practices may have condensed into a set of "oral policies" being
effectively part of the local code of conduct.
5. All avatars are entitled to the rights and freedom limited by the
code of conduct on an equal basis among their peer as long as they use
those on a good faith basis.
6. All avatars are entitled the absolute and inalienable right not to
be harassed in any manner by any other avatar, whatever his rank or
privilege. In character behaviour becomes harassment if someone becomes
the target of focussed and systematic behaviour going beyond what is
expected from roleplay.
7. The following rights may be abridged or supressed by the local code
of conduct:
- freedom of speech and opinion
- freedom of gathering
- privacy
- virtual posession
8. Avatars are entitled to one single complaint regarding a breach of
the code of conduct by other avatars, and should expect this complaint
to be answered and kept private or at least anonymous.
9. The imp's word is final, supercedes the local code of conduct if he
wishes so, and no other avatar is entitled to more than one complaint
issued on a good faith basis as expressed in article 8.
That's it. Now of course, there's a shorter way to express this (the
always popular KISS version):
"The relationship between imps and their virtual community should be
based on a good faith practice. If this good faith is betrayed, and
cannot be resolved quickly through dialogue, either party should
terminate the relationship. Mortals do so by "unsubscribing", while the
imps will resort to player removal. Anything beyond that is an
alienable privilege given by the imp."
The bottomline of it all:
As I did myself until proven wrong on this very newsgroup a while ago,
I think underestimating the weight of the Axiom of Mudding above is a
common mistake.
Naming staff, giving privileges, core design decisions may never be
understood or accepted if you ignore that basically, be it conscious or
not, the imp and his team seek first to further enjoy themselves. If a
player's enjoyment and the imp's enjoyment overlap, then it's all for
the better. If not, I urge players to look for places where there is
such overlapping - and not make a fuss about it.
Food for thoughts or merely flames? Bring 'em on.
Cheers,
Alastair
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Passenger Pigeon
<alast...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> "Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
> enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to do
> whatever he likes with it."
This is fair for those cases in which the first sentence is true.
However, there are MUDs started for other reasons; an easy example would
be pay-for-play MUDs, which are arguably created as a business. When
selling a product, you must offer the consumer certain perquisites and
guarantees, so the second sentence cannot apply.
--
William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com
HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth
Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/
Passenger Pigeon
<alast...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <passenger_pigeon-85CB58.02081306092000@news-server>,
> Passenger Pigeon <passenge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <8p5be3$7gk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alastair
> > <alast...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
> > > enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege
> to do
> > > whatever he likes with it."
> >
> > This is fair for those cases in which the first sentence is true.
> > However, there are MUDs started for other reasons; an easy example
> would
> > be pay-for-play MUDs, which are arguably created as a business. When
> > selling a product, you must offer the consumer certain perquisites
> and
> > guarantees, so the second sentence cannot apply.
>
> You are absolutely correct. That's also why I said I wasn't addressing
> pay-to-play MUDs :-)
Whoops. Don't mind me.
> Owner of commercial MUDs have a slightly different approach, since they
> have to balance between their own vision, customer demand, public
> relations and in some cases even shareholder value.
> Also, I expect a commercial MUD admin would have to be bound quite
> closely to the terms of services (the local code of conduct). However,
> a business relationship still needs to be based on good faith
> principles. Main difference is that if an admin breaches those on pay-
> to-play MUDs, players probably have material to sue...
I agree. Matter of fact, I agree with all the stuff I snipped last
time, too...I think that the rights of the administrator to their
administration must be taken into account before the rights of the
avatar, which after all only has rights inasmuch as it is an extension
of a person.
Raph Koster
<jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>"shade" <shade2x...@writeme.com> wrote in message
>news:1eg7od3.1inbsezjspxvkN%shade2x...@writeme.com...
>> I'm just going to respond to the beginning of Raph's message because I
>> must admit I'm a little tired, but I thought this might get things going
>> well, assuming I manage to get a response from people other then the
>> 'foad'ers.
>
>Raph's article is marvelous mixture of NEW thought and applications
>of OLD thought as it applies to mud administration.
Well, thank you. And thank you for your contributions that helped make
it so.
>However once again...
>I feel the NEED to point out that the article has some rather OBVIOUS
>shortcomings. It does NOT attempt to address the RIGHTS of Shade's PENIS
>vs. the RIGHTS of little girls to be free from STALKING, MOLESTATION and
>RAPE. Nor does it attempt to address the RIGHTS of the SEVERELY MENTALLY
>ILL (i.e. Scott Guzman aka Shade) in cyberspace.
Nor was that its intent. :) Did I misunderstand the purpose of the
[ethics] tag? I thuoght it was for general discussion of admin ethics
(I do not frequent this ng much anymore). I did not intend the article
to have anything to do with the repellent behavior described by Shade.
IMHO, one of the best things that we ever did at LegendMUD was get rid
of him...
-Raph
Raph Koster
wrote:
>In article <39ac77f9.96862354@news-server>,
> rko...@austin.rr.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
>[snip]
>I won't comment specifically on the issue, but here are my own
>conservative thoughts on the matter (I'm not addressing pay-to-play
>issues):
>
>Prior to a player's bill of right, the following absolute and universal
>axiom has to be formulated and understood:
>
>"Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
>enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to do
>whatever he likes with it."
This is a hugely general assumption. Does the creator of an
educational mud such as HotelMOO or MediaMOO create it for their
private enjoyment? What about a mud sponsored in part as a research
project, like LambdaMOO?
Beyond that, it's also a position that has zero social responsibility,
as the article discusses. It attempts to adhere to a standard of
personal privilege that we do not grant in the real world.
This is not to say that I disagree with the axiom per se; I am saying
that it is an unexamined assumption that is easily shot to pieces.
>This simple "Axiom of Mudding" already situates player rights not in
>the realm of democratical thinking, but in the one of (*gasp!*)
>monarchy. Now people may want to challenge that axiom, but it is my
>firm conviction that if the above is not true and absolute, then nobody
>would start running a MUD at all.
The final statement there is easily quibbled with; yes, one could
argue that by, for example, crfeating a mud intended for professionals
in a field to gather and discuss issues relevant to the field (as
MediaMOO does) one is doing it "because one wants to" as well. But
that's reductio ad absurdum. It's definitely not "absolute" as you put
it. There have been many instances of people running muds for other
reasons.
>Moving from here, though, a reasonable imp will consider granting
>certain basic rights to his players (if he doesn't, one wonders why he
>runs a MUD instead of fiddling with a roguelike game's code).
A point the article makes; right now, "rights" for avatars is silly.
The article also, however, tries to point out that the notion may not
be silly in the future. One interesting point that was brought up
recently regarding the article in otehr forums was the notion that
since these games require significant investment of time and effort in
character development that there is agruably real world value to that
effort. This is validated by the phenomenon (quite well established)
of selling characters and equipment for real world money. Whatever our
opinion of such goings-on, they are evidence of the assignment of real
world monetary value to the particular patterns of ones and zeroes
that represent a character.
In that case, there are interesting legal grounds for considering the
notion of property rights for players even in a free mud.
>The bottomline of it all:
>As I did myself until proven wrong on this very newsgroup a while ago,
>I think underestimating the weight of the Axiom of Mudding above is a
>common mistake.
Personally, I think that the weight of the axiom of mudding (and
likely why it was defended vigorously here) comes from the fact that
it's a selfish axiom, and those who have the most stake in it are the
people on this newsgroup. :)
-Raph
shade
> Did I misunderstand the purpose of the
> [ethics] tag? I thuoght it was for general discussion of admin ethics
> (I do not frequent this ng much anymore). I did not intend the article
> to have anything to do with the repellent behavior described by Shade.
> IMHO, one of the best things that we ever did at LegendMUD was get rid
> of him...
You cut deep Raph, particularly since I had been hoping you wouldn't be
so harsh on me. Nevertheless, atleast you haven't succumbed to the
berating type of language that people like Jon Lambert uses. Anyway, I'm
questioning how much you knew of the actual situation regarding me and
Legendmud.
While I was an active member of Legendmud, my primary character, Jean,
was never gotten 'rid' of. I know that after not having logged on for
ages, he was deleted, but I know for a fact that that after a fair
amount of time, it's standard procedure to delete characters.
Not that there wasn't conflict between me and Legendmud. The main
reason I basically left after a while was because, although Jean himself
was never deleted, he had been denied access to the legendmud boards.
Ironically, the reason I may not have been deleted was perhaps because I
myself suggested to an administrator that instead of deleting me, they
might simply try banning me from the boards. Apparently, it did just the
trick, as writing there had been my main joy on Legendmud.
You seem to suggest that I brought up cybersexual topics on Legendmud
boards or perhaps in chats. Nothing could be further from the truth; I
never did this. My public foray into these types of discussions on the
internet only started -after- Legendmud, on The Mud Connector. As an
aside, I myself didn't bring the topic up even there; it started with
ther issue of cyberape, which I felt should be opposed by all admins
(ironically, some admins, and I believe some who are here, weren't so
keen on the idea that they should need to do this). Me being me, I drew
upon my own life to show why I felt it was important; I brought up the
spectre of actual rape, and, showing that I wasn't simply talking
theory, I mentioned that my main girl had been raped and the emotional
harm that caused her and me. Someone ferretted out the fact that the
girl in question was 9 years my junior and the focus thereafter became
that the issue of whether or not that was good. After a long time of not
getting along, me and this girl are getting along again. For reference
sake, I'll mention that I'm 24, and she's 15 now.
Anyway, from this, things led relatively quickly to actions that
happened in my past. How exactly I can't remember, but my guess is that
some people were wondering about it and I do so hate the 'he's not
telling us everything' game, so I just let it out. After having
discussed it at length, I think I've realized that I've made some
mistakes. However, I've also realized that what is right and wrong on
the issue of sexuality is a very subjective thing; another thing I've
learned is that certain labels, such as 'pedophile', can be used in such
a broad manner that you can have everything from someone who was not
only sexual with children, but killed them, like Dutroux, is put into
the same category as someone who simply sees online pictures of people
under some arbitrary age (say, 18). I've found some very good articles
that delve into the absurdity of this, which can be seen here:
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Statements/about.htm
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/v_naerssen_sc_eng.htm
The first article also brings up the fact that, unfortunately, there is
very little empirical knowledge as to the general healthiness of minors
engaging in sexual relationships with adults, primarily because the
practice is generally illegal and so the people who would be required
for a study are understandably nearly impossible to find.
Heck, might as well show the root of the first article, as there are a
great many more interesting articles from there. I may not agree with
everything they have to say (while it's true that everyone is originally
a stranger to us, that doesn't mean that one should trust the average
stranger), but I find a lot of it to hold merit.
Also, I found the following article by a neuropsychologist to be quite
interesting regarding the relationship between sexuality and violence; I
can easily imagine that the reason for the positively violent behaviour
displayed by many of my opponents is in no small part caused by their
own upbringing regarding sexuality..
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99-110a%20Prescott%20Eng.
htm
As I've mentioned here before, I do intend to go to a large library one
day and see if I can find anything anyway, but my sleeping schedule
isn't making that easy.
--
shade
email address is: sha...@writeme.com
home page: http://members.home.net/shade2x/
shade
> >Moving from here, though, a reasonable imp will consider granting
> >certain basic rights to his players (if he doesn't, one wonders why he
> >runs a MUD instead of fiddling with a roguelike game's code).
>
> A point the article makes; right now, "rights" for avatars is silly.
I think the giving rights to avatars is the problem here. If we think of
people on muds as players, and players as human beings (as, indeed, they
are), then what we're talking about isn't about characters that 'aren't
real', but rather only extensions of ourselves. People can and do sue
others if they're misrepresented in, say, the media, even though they
themselves were never in a tabloid magazine or what not, only their
representations, as seen in pictures or stories.
In truth though, I think a word that is more powerful then media and
reflects much more what muds can do is the term 'community'. Muds, by
and large, are communities. There are few people who have all that much
loyalty to the 'media', besides the few who create it, but muds are much
more broadband; the only narrow part about them is the administration
themselves, but they certainly don't generate most of the media on muds.
Many communities already enjoy a fair amount of rights. When it comes
down to it, big as they are, nations are basically very large
communities, albeit generally not with the close connections of, say,
the hometown of many people.
Another thing I was thinking about is just how far the term 'mud' can
eventually extend to. Thinking about it, mud and community can
definitely become synonymous terms, only mud is one syllable, vs.
community's 4; I've noticed that in language, when 2 words are
essentially the same, people tend to go for the shortest syllabled word,
the better to say more in less time (there are, ofcourse, exceptions,
but the fact that they're exceptions means those words will, in my view,
be on the wane).
Thinking thusly, one can realize that the term can easily go to a very
broad scale. While some people think of MUD standing for Multi User
Dungeon, many others think of it as a Multi User Domain. That definition
doesn't even imply that the Domain has to be -online-. In short, any
forum, online or off, where more then one person is present could be
classified as a mud. It merely becomes some type of space wherein a
group resides, whether that be in a room or bound together from various
parts of the world through the internet.
A tabloid or newspaper, emcompassing a certain group of people, could be
considered a 'mud', as well as the T.V. or any web site with more then
one viewer on it.
To differentiate, I can easily imagine people finally starting to add
letters to 'mud' to be more specific, such as "IMUD" (Internet MUD), or
"OMUD" (offline mud).
shade
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Statements/
Myles L Skinner
shade <shade2x...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
> In truth though, I think a word that is more powerful then[sic] media and
> reflects much more what muds can do is the term 'community'. Muds, by
> definitely become synonymous terms...
While it might be true that all MUDs are communities (arguable), it is
certainly not true that all communities are MUDs. The terms don't commute and
therefore can't be synonyms. Unfortunately, the rest of your argument is
built on this false assumption of "synonymous terms" and is woefully inadequate
as a result. (Gosh, Scotty, where have we seen *that* from you before?)
A significant percentage of Internet users don't even know what a MUD is. An
even larger proportion of non-Internet users wouldn't know either. Therefore:
> To differentiate, I can easily imagine people finally starting to add
> letters to 'mud' to be more specific, such as "IMUD" (Internet MUD), or
> "OMUD" (offline mud).
This particular back-formation will never occur.
ms
--
Covenant MUD: "Our Silent Supporters Can Beat Up Your Silent Supporters!"
shade
> In article <1egq78v.1ilzpc9icoxneN%shade2x...@writeme.com>,
> shade <shade2x...@writeme.com> wrote:
> >
> > In truth though, I think a word that is more powerful then[sic] media and
> > reflects much more what muds can do is the term 'community'. Muds, by
> > and large, are communities...Thinking about it, mud and community can
> > definitely become synonymous terms...
>
> While it might be true that all MUDs are communities (arguable), it is
> certainly not true that all communities are MUDs.
That's only because you're probably defining the term 'mud' as an online
community, perhaps only the ones you can telnet too. Words can and are
defined by the people who use them ( a good example of this is the term
'pedophile', as can be seen in this article:
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Statements/about.htm ) For now, I
think there isn't enough momentum to have it extend further then
telnetable online places (if the mud only has one person, I could agree
with you that it's not a community; actually defining community might be
a good thing).
> The terms don't commute and therefore can't be synonyms. Unfortunately,
> the rest of your argument is built on this false assumption of "synonymous
> terms" and is woefully inadequate as a result. (Gosh, Scotty, where have
> we seen *that* from you before?)
Clearly, we both think that our differing points of view regarding
various things, from sexuality to perhaps alcoholism, are based on false
assumptions. Despite all of this however, I would argue that neither of
us has been able to glean much evidence; we have opinions of
psychologists and other professionals, but no evidence to back up the
claims.
By way of example:
In reference to alcoholism, it really comes down to definitions; even my
opponents have admitted that an 'alcoholic' may stop drinking and never
drink for the rest of his or her life, even if that life goes on another
50 years. But they would still consider that person an alcoholic,
because they define an alcoholic only as someone who's vulnerable to
wanting to drink again, while I think that an alcoholic should only be
defined as someone who can't control their drinking habits (and so
drinks too much). One can truly define the term either way; perhaps the
term is more commonly defined the way my opponents define it, but that
doesn't mean that I can't define the term the way I think it should be
defined. My main reason is to give people who have managed to control
their drinking (if only by not drinking at all) a label that respects
that fact; perhaps a 'former alcoholic'; this definition could by
definition imply that were they to drink again, they wouldn't be able to
control how much they drink.
In reference to sexuality rights, I maintain that if people are so sure
that people below a certain age shouldn't engage in sexual activities,
online or off, they should by definition know what makes a person mature
and what doesn't; to be specific, why that particular age? I would argue
that they're implying that they -do- know what makes a person mature;
and you should know by now that I'd be all to happy to get more
information on how to make a good cybersex license atleast (I certainly
wouldn't mind helping making a sex license as well, although I certainly
don't intend on doing something -that- big alone).
Furthermore, why is there so much disagreement on what that age should
be (from 12 to 21)? People have mentioned culture before, but no one has
truly offered any evidence that any culture's view of when they allow
people to engage in sexual activities is justified. Ironically, I
-myself- would think that there are times when it shouldn't be allowed;
when a person doesn't display certain sexual maturity. Judging from my
own knowledge of minors, I have yet to meet one who is ready, either
financially (though a select few actually do have the financial
resources for it) or emotionally ready to have a baby, and I've learned
that with procreative sex, there's apparently always that risk, after a
certain age anyway (but it seems that that age can be as low as 8; and
before that, the sexual organs might be damaged if they were to engage
in procreative sex).
> A significant percentage of Internet users don't even know what a MUD is. An
> even larger proportion of non-Internet users wouldn't know either.
100% correct ofcourse. But you didn't realize that the main thrust of my
argument isn't for now, in which you clearly have the situation in hand.
I'm talking about the future, and I'm not even defining how -much- in
the future I'm talking about. As I mentioned, it's possible that they
may latch on to some other word, but I just felt that, because of the
shortness of the mud acronym (just one syllable and 3 letters), they may
eventually go for that one as a replacement to the much larger
'community'.
> Therefore:
>
> > To differentiate, I can easily imagine people finally starting to add
> > letters to 'mud' to be more specific, such as "IMUD" (Internet MUD), or
> > "OMUD" (offline mud).
>
> This particular back-formation will never occur.
You seem to be claiming to be a clairvoyant of some sort, something I
certainly haven't claimed ;-).
--
shade
email address is: sha...@writeme.com
home page: http://members.home.net/shade2x/
Jon A. Lambert
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:56:55 GMT, Alastair <alast...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Prior to a player's bill of right, the following absolute and universal
> >axiom has to be formulated and understood:
> >
> >"Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
> >enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to do
> >whatever he likes with it."
>
> This is a hugely general assumption. Does the creator of an
> educational mud such as HotelMOO or MediaMOO create it for their
> private enjoyment? What about a mud sponsored in part as a research
> project, like LambdaMOO?
>
> Beyond that, it's also a position that has zero social responsibility,
> as the article discusses. It attempts to adhere to a standard of
> personal privilege that we do not grant in the real world.
>
> This is not to say that I disagree with the axiom per se; I am saying
> that it is an unexamined assumption that is easily shot to pieces.
>
There is yet another aspect. There are quite a few older games running
out there that no longer have their original creators or implementors;
where players or others have inherited the administration of the mud.
While ownership could be defined simply as the person(s) currently paying
the server bill, intellectual ownership of the sources, documentation and
everything that has been created within the game is many times removed from
the original owners. Oftentimes the mud is referred to in the third
person, as a separate entity that owns things.
It is not uncommon for administrators who have inherited such games to
not express any sense of ownership at all, but more a sense of stewardship.
So in that sense alone such games could be said to have already passed
into the realm of "For the general good of the mud" rather than "My mud".
Often such games become quite democratic at the wizard or trusted levels,
and collective/shared ownership is established at that level.
It's not a far leap to imagine that player-owned and operated muds are
quite feasible, and similar contracts of player rights will evolve here
and there. I do think it is certainly something that can be done by a
conscious and deliberate choice of the developer(s) whether they be
commercial or hobbyists.
Here's a crazy thought. Imagine a mud incorporating as a publicly held
company issuing preferred voting stock to players. ;-)
There are countless examples in the "real" world where organizations
and institutions were founded, funded and operated by single individuals
which survived them intact in purpose. It is certainly possible that
muds will.
> >This simple "Axiom of Mudding" already situates player rights not in
> >the realm of democratical thinking, but in the one of (*gasp!*)
> >monarchy. Now people may want to challenge that axiom, but it is my
> >firm conviction that if the above is not true and absolute, then nobody
> >would start running a MUD at all.
Well to be pedantic in order for it to be axiomatic there must be
no observable exceptions. Anyways I know what you mean. :-)
> Personally, I think that the weight of the axiom of mudding (and
> likely why it was defended vigorously here) comes from the fact that
> it's a selfish axiom, and those who have the most stake in it are the
> people on this newsgroup. :)
>
True. Not a lot of players post here. And the ones that do are probably
best classified as old-school hard core text mud players. Then again not
a lot of players post on Mud-Dev either. And much of the response there
wasn't that dissimilar.
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsy...@NOSPAM.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://tychomud.home.netcom.com> *--
--* If I had known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.*--
Ketho of Davenant
>That's only because you're probably defining the term 'mud' as an online
>community, perhaps only the ones you can telnet too. Words can and are
>defined by the people who use them ( a good example of this is the term
>'pedophile',
WHY must this dolt turn EVERY discussion here back one where he advocates child
abuse? People who think they can discuss other subjects with this predator are
simply wrong. Once again this self-admitted child abuser has shown why, he will
attempt to turn EVERY discussion into a defense of his perversion.
Shade, FOAD.
Ketho
"To search for the old is to understand the new."
Raph Koster
(shade) wrote:
>Raph Koster <rko...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Did I misunderstand the purpose of the
>> [ethics] tag? I thuoght it was for general discussion of admin ethics
>> (I do not frequent this ng much anymore). I did not intend the article
>> to have anything to do with the repellent behavior described by Shade.
>> IMHO, one of the best things that we ever did at LegendMUD was get rid
>> of him...
>
>You cut deep Raph, particularly since I had been hoping you wouldn't be
>so harsh on me. Nevertheless, atleast you haven't succumbed to the
>berating type of language that people like Jon Lambert uses. Anyway, I'm
>questioning how much you knew of the actual situation regarding me and
>Legendmud.
I know enough. In fact, the entire staff of Legend, including most
particularly the current imp, my wife, have been following your
subsequent posting career with interest. :P
>While I was an active member of Legendmud, my primary character, Jean,
>was never gotten 'rid' of.
I did not say you were banned; had you posted material such as that
you posted on Mud Connector and here, you would have been, I promise
you that.
We were rid of you in the sense that you were no longer there. The
precise way in whcih that happened is immaterial.
I don't particularly want to delve into the debate. I do find the acts
you described repellent. Period. I happen to agree with those who feel
you need counseling.
-Raph
shade
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 04:49:56 -0500, shade2x...@writeme.com
> (shade) wrote:
>
> >Raph Koster <rko...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Did I misunderstand the purpose of the
> >> [ethics] tag? I thuoght it was for general discussion of admin ethics
> >> (I do not frequent this ng much anymore). I did not intend the article
> >> to have anything to do with the repellent behavior described by Shade.
> >> IMHO, one of the best things that we ever did at LegendMUD was get rid
> >> of him...
> >
> >You cut deep Raph, particularly since I had been hoping you wouldn't be
> >so harsh on me. Nevertheless, atleast you haven't succumbed to the
> >berating type of language that people like Jon Lambert uses. Anyway, I'm
> >questioning how much you knew of the actual situation regarding me and
> >Legendmud.
>
> I know enough. In fact, the entire staff of Legend, including most
> particularly the current imp, my wife, have been following your
> subsequent posting career with interest. :P
I find that hard to believe; if you were truly interested, I think you
would have put in your 2 bits in before I myself responded to you.
Anyway, out of curiosity, who's the curent imp? Sandra? I believe it was
primarily because of her that I was denied access to the boards. She had
been continually threatening that 'something' would happen, the gamut of
possibilities naturally extending to banning, so I told her that she
resembled an ogre (I meant in ways of resolving disagreements). Do you
have any idea what the disagreements were about or was it enough for you
that I dared disagree with you high and mighty admin types for more then
a post or 2?
> >While I was an active member of Legendmud, my primary character, Jean,
> >was never gotten 'rid' of.
>
> I did not say you were banned
True, though you must atleast admit that that's what most people think
of when one 'rids' oneself of a player on a mud, don't you think? At the
very least deletion; I have never heard of someone else like me who was
so interested in posting on the boards that he or she would leave
because of it.
> had you posted material such as that
> you posted on Mud Connector and here, you would have been, I promise
> you that.
That I can believe. Ofcourse, that wouldn't make it justifiable to do
so, but that, ofcourse, is another matter entirely.
> I don't particularly want to delve into the debate.
Which debate? Why legendmud felt it necessary to deny my access to the
boards? I have a feeling you're referring to my past actions, but I
don't mind discussing either issue.
> I do find the acts you described repellent. Period.
My actions with the 3 young girls? Alright. You're naturally free to
view it any way you like. As I hope you know by now, I myself know I
made mistakes with those girls. But how many times do I have to state
that those actions were in my past and that I would never consider doing
something without consent again?
> I happen to agree with those who feel you need counseling.
Why precisely though? If I myself have realized that the actions I did
where I didn't get consent were mistaken, then are you going into the
issue of actions I did but where there -was- consent? The 2 issues are,
I would think, quite removed. I certainly agree that consent in and of
itself shouldn't be enough; that there should be, instead, informed
consent. Was there informed consent when I asked to, say, kiss the back
of M (age 7)? I'm not sure. How would you define informed consent. I'm
interested in knowing if you read the following articles and if you did,
what you thought of them:
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Statements/about.htm
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/v_naerssen_sc_eng.htm
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99-110a%20Prescott%20Eng.
htm
Alastair
rko...@austin.rr.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:56:55 GMT, Alastair <alast...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <39ac77f9.96862354@news-server>,
> > rko...@austin.rr.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
> >[snip]
> >I won't comment specifically on the issue, but here are my own
> >conservative thoughts on the matter (I'm not addressing pay-to-play
> >issues):
> >
> >Prior to a player's bill of right, the following absolute and
universal
> >axiom has to be formulated and understood:
> >
> >"Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
> >enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to
do
> >whatever he likes with it."
>
> This is a hugely general assumption.
Indeed :-) But then again, the whole debate started out of the
assumption that avatars DO need rights declared, didn't it?
Of course, you'll note that I didn't follow the discussions on Muddev
at all and jumped onto it from your initial post here, so pardon me if
I would post things you think have been rebutted already.
> Does the creator of an
> educational mud such as HotelMOO or MediaMOO create it for their
> private enjoyment? What about a mud sponsored in part as a research
> project, like LambdaMOO?
Point taken.
> Beyond that, it's also a position that has zero social responsibility,
> as the article discusses. It attempts to adhere to a standard of
> personal privilege that we do not grant in the real world.
> This is not to say that I disagree with the axiom per se; I am saying
> that it is an unexamined assumption that is easily shot to pieces.
You are, again, absolutely correct, of course.
> >This simple "Axiom of Mudding" already situates player rights not in
> >the realm of democratical thinking, but in the one of (*gasp!*)
> >monarchy. Now people may want to challenge that axiom, but it is my
> >firm conviction that if the above is not true and absolute, then
nobody
> >would start running a MUD at all.
>
> The final statement there is easily quibbled with; yes, one could
> argue that by, for example, crfeating a mud intended for professionals
> in a field to gather and discuss issues relevant to the field (as
> MediaMOO does) one is doing it "because one wants to" as well. But
> that's reductio ad absurdum. It's definitely not "absolute" as you put
> it. There have been many instances of people running muds for other
> reasons.
As a side note, I wonder why one would go through the hassle of setting
up a MUD for non-gaming purposes (on the player side, not talking about
creator's goals) nowadays instead of using other chat mediums which
seem handier. But that's vastly beside the question and merely private
curiosity.
> >Moving from here, though, a reasonable imp will consider granting
> >certain basic rights to his players (if he doesn't, one wonders why
he
> >runs a MUD instead of fiddling with a roguelike game's code).
>
> A point the article makes; right now, "rights" for avatars is silly.
>
> The article also, however, tries to point out that the notion may not
> be silly in the future. One interesting point that was brought up
> recently regarding the article in otehr forums was the notion that
> since these games require significant investment of time and effort in
> character development that there is agruably real world value to that
> effort. This is validated by the phenomenon (quite well established)
> of selling characters and equipment for real world money. Whatever our
> opinion of such goings-on, they are evidence of the assignment of real
> world monetary value to the particular patterns of ones and zeroes
> that represent a character.
>
> In that case, there are interesting legal grounds for considering the
> notion of property rights for players even in a free mud.
>
Again, I understand what you are pointing out, but, still to debate the
question on the "egocentrical" side, why and how should the
administration be concerned of what's going on? I mean, character sales
happen outside, not inside (well, they shouldn't. Yet they probably do,
too) the MUD. The admininstration does not benefit from such outgame
sales in any way.
I find it quite disturbing to think about the consequences of what you
are suggesting. Here's a scenario: Player A sells his character and Eq
on MUD X to player B. A few days after the transaction is performed,
the adminsitration, for whatever reason, valid or not so valid,
performs a pwipe.
Going too far into any avatar rights would probably spark off a new
breed of class lawsuits, and God knows we don't need those.
And knowing that lots of people are fond of outside examples, here's
one:
Your hobby is bicycling. You invest hours into it, yet you just can't
sell the fitness you acquired or your muscles to somebody else...
Basically, to go back to my general assumption and debunked axiom, I
still think there is a majority of MUDs there started as a hobby by
their staff. Some staff member is investing money (server fees) into
it, all the others invest lots of time.
Of course, their interest is to make a pleasant place - I again submit
that if it wasn't, they'd be better off coding a roguelike game ;) -
for people to play on. But just consider: if someone spoils the admin's
fun, they will either retire and hand the game down to others (this
might happen on old and popular MUDs), or just shut down. If you
consider the ramifications of legifering about virtual property, and
just how much all this could (and would) limit the enjoyment the
administration gets out of it, doesn't it just send a shudder through
your spine?
Sure, being a MUD immortal gives me power I don't get IRL. The question
of being able to deal with it aside for a minute, though, I'd seriously
reconsider my hobby of choice if there are laws regulating how I deal
with the players on my free MUD. I mean, the worst case I'd imagine is
an imp shutting down his MUD in disgust and then getting sued for
that... and don't laugh, I swear in Europe we here about lots of even
stranger lawsuits started in the USA...
> >The bottomline of it all:
> >As I did myself until proven wrong on this very newsgroup a while
ago,
> >I think underestimating the weight of the Axiom of Mudding above is a
> >common mistake.
>
> Personally, I think that the weight of the axiom of mudding (and
> likely why it was defended vigorously here) comes from the fact that
> it's a selfish axiom, and those who have the most stake in it are the
> people on this newsgroup. :)
Again, you are probably correct, but note that I'm a mere MUD staffer,
not an admin, and don't plan to become one in the future.
That being said, of course there's no such thing as a Mudding axiom. As
has been pointed out further in the thread, applying mathematical
rationale to social interaction is risky at best. So what? No axiom.
But then again, no universal declaration of avatar rights either - I'd
rather point out to the thread about the MUD Advisory Board as some
possible solution to keep ethical conduct of MUD administrations on the
side of the good faith relationship I mentionned in my initial response
to you.
Alastair
Alastair <alast...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> But then again, no universal declaration of avatar rights either - I'd
> rather point out to the thread about the MUD Advisory Board as some
> possible solution to keep ethical conduct of MUD administrations on
the
> side of the good faith relationship I mentionned in my initial
response
> to you.
Slight precision here: I thought the MAB concept interesting. However,
I'd like to dissociate myself from the current efforts given the fact
that shade is a board member.
Ketho of Davenant
>Slight precision here: I thought the MAB concept interesting. However,
>I'd like to dissociate myself from the current efforts given the fact
>that shade is a board member.
>
*ROLL EYES* Shade is a MAB board member? What on earth possesses these people
to associate themselves with him? This points out the fatal weakness of such
self-selected commissions/boards/bureaus doesn't it? Those other MAB
indivuiduals, regardless of how good their intentions really are, are doing the
mud community a grave disservice by giving a self-confessed child abuser like
Shade ANYTHING that can be percieved by the rest of the world as an
authority/oversight role on mudding.
The Atheist
shade <shade2x...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:1egrq6o.19ufxhyiheb28N%shade2x...@writeme.com...
WHINE, BITCH, MOAN FOAD (To quote the rest of the group)
She had
> been continually threatening that 'something' would happen, the gamut of
> possibilities naturally extending to banning, so I told her that she
> resembled an ogre (I meant in ways of resolving disagreements). Do you
> have any idea what the disagreements were about or was it enough for you
> that I dared disagree with you high and mighty admin types for more then
> a post or 2?
WHINE, BITCH, MOAN FOAD (To quote the rest of the group)
>
> > >While I was an active member of Legendmud, my primary character, Jean,
> > >was never gotten 'rid' of.
> >
> > I did not say you were banned
>
> True, though you must atleast admit that that's what most people think
> of when one 'rids' oneself of a player on a mud, don't you think? At the
> very least deletion; I have never heard of someone else like me who was
> so interested in posting on the boards that he or she would leave
> because of it.
WHINE, BITCH, Shut the hell up MOAN, FOAD (To quote the rest of the group)
>
> > had you posted material such as that
> > you posted on Mud Connector and here, you would have been, I promise
> > you that.
>
> That I can believe. Ofcourse, that wouldn't make it justifiable to do
> so, but that, ofcourse, is another matter entirely.
>
> > I don't particularly want to delve into the debate.
>
> Which debate? Why legendmud felt it necessary to deny my access to the
> boards? I have a feeling you're referring to my past actions, but I
> don't mind discussing either issue.
I know for a fact most of us don't want to hear either from you SHADE, Scott
Guzman, Predator, slimeball, PONYBOY! Yes you heard me right you pedophilic
scum, WHINE BITCH, Shut the hell up MOAN, FOAD (To quote the rest of the
group)
>
> > I do find the acts you described repellent. Period.
>
> My actions with the 3 young girls? Alright. You're naturally free to
> view it any way you like.
Yes Scott Guzman is a pedophile and is quite happy about it, let's hear it
for Shade the vile!
WHINE, BITCH, MOAN, FOAD
As I hope you know by now, I myself know I
> made mistakes with those girls. But how many times do I have to state
> that those actions were in my past and that I would never consider doing
> something without consent again?
With or without consent it doesn't matter you are infact a pedophile and
will always be, don't feed me or any of the others shit about how much
you've changed Simple fact is you wouldn't take responsibility for a single
thing you did in your life if you could get away with it, I tell you what I
have a 6 year old staying with me right now, wanna come down and screw
around with her? No in all seriousiness If you ever got withint 10 feet of
her or anyone else I knew, I'd shorten your life enough that you'd have 10
seconds to say your prays before you went spiraling down to hell. So my
advice FOAD!
>
> > I happen to agree with those who feel you need counseling.
>
> Why precisely though? If I myself have realized that the actions I did
> where I didn't get consent were mistaken, then are you going into the
> issue of actions I did but where there -was- consent? The 2 issues are,
> I would think, quite removed. I certainly agree that consent in and of
> itself shouldn't be enough; that there should be, instead, informed
> consent. Was there informed consent when I asked to, say, kiss the back
> of M (age 7)? I'm not sure. How would you define informed consent. I'm
> interested in knowing if you read the following articles and if you did,
> what you thought of them:
> http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Statements/about.htm
> http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/v_naerssen_sc_eng.htm
> http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/ipceweb/Library/99-110a%20Prescott%20Eng.
> htm
> --
> shade
> email address is: sha...@writeme.com
> home page: http://members.home.net/shade2x/
The Atheist
I hereby declare martial law! All violators will be exterminated!
Aristotle
>Slight precision here: I thought the MAB concept interesting. However,
>I'd like to dissociate myself from the current efforts given the fact
>that shade is a board member.
*chuckle*. What would possess them to allow a confessed pedophile into their
group? Oh well, at least that helps make this bad idea get squelched early on.
-Aristotle@Threshold
--
VISIT THRESHOLD - Online Roleplaying at its Finest. Player run clans, guilds,
legal system, economy, religions, nobility, and more in a world where roleplay
is required! Roleplay online with thousands of people from all over the world.
http://www.thresholdrpg.com -**- telnet://thresholdrpg.com:23
Raph Koster
wrote:
>In article <39ba560a.502480807@news-server>,
> rko...@austin.rr.com (Raph Koster) wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 11:56:55 GMT, Alastair <alast...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Any MUD's initial imp creates an online game for his own private
>> >enjoyment. It is his absolute and unalienable right and privilege to do
>> >whatever he likes with it."
>>
>> This is a hugely general assumption.
>
>Indeed :-) But then again, the whole debate started out of the
>assumption that avatars DO need rights declared, didn't it?
No, actually; you may want to reread the original post. :)
>Of course, you'll note that I didn't follow the discussions on Muddev
>at all and jumped onto it from your initial post here, so pardon me if
>I would post things you think have been rebutted already.
No problem. :) Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.
>As a side note, I wonder why one would go through the hassle of setting
>up a MUD for non-gaming purposes (on the player side, not talking about
>creator's goals) nowadays instead of using other chat mediums which
>seem handier. But that's vastly beside the question and merely private
>curiosity.
Well, some aren't as handy, I would guess. Anything that benefits from
a spatial metaphor in the medium, as well as greater interactivity
(such as the presence of "objects" to interact with) would be
well-served to use a mud of some sort rather than IRC or ICQ or other
chat media.
>> In that case, there are interesting legal grounds for considering the
>> notion of property rights for players even in a free mud.
>>
>Again, I understand what you are pointing out, but, still to debate the
>question on the "egocentrical" side, why and how should the
>administration be concerned of what's going on? I mean, character sales
>happen outside, not inside (well, they shouldn't. Yet they probably do,
>too) the MUD. The admininstration does not benefit from such outgame
>sales in any way.
It doesn't matter; there are laws that apply to aftermarket sales of
goods, for example, and some affect the original vendor. There's also
the inevitable question of what happens whent he mud admins decide to
get in on the fun of profits. :P
Even in a free mud, if the law ascribes value to the "property" a
character has a mud (and actually grants ownership of said property to
the player), then the admins, as those who control the property, are
liable for its loss. That's a pretty large concern, don't you think?
("You deleted my character, you owe me $500!")
>I find it quite disturbing to think about the consequences of what you
>are suggesting. Here's a scenario: Player A sells his character and Eq
>on MUD X to player B. A few days after the transaction is performed,
>the adminsitration, for whatever reason, valid or not so valid,
>performs a pwipe.
This would be one reason why several of the commercial graphical muds
(like EverQuest, for example) have banned aftermarket sales.
>Going too far into any avatar rights would probably spark off a new
>breed of class lawsuits, and God knows we don't need those.
Avatar rights isn't going to bring that about--eBay auctions are. :)
>Basically, to go back to my general assumption and debunked axiom, I
>still think there is a majority of MUDs there started as a hobby by
>their staff. Some staff member is investing money (server fees) into
>it, all the others invest lots of time.
>Of course, their interest is to make a pleasant place - I again submit
>that if it wasn't, they'd be better off coding a roguelike game ;) -
>for people to play on. But just consider: if someone spoils the admin's
>fun, they will either retire and hand the game down to others (this
>might happen on old and popular MUDs), or just shut down. If you
>consider the ramifications of legifering about virtual property, and
>just how much all this could (and would) limit the enjoyment the
>administration gets out of it, doesn't it just send a shudder through
>your spine?
Yep. It's coming, though. IMHO.
>Sure, being a MUD immortal gives me power I don't get IRL. The question
>of being able to deal with it aside for a minute, though, I'd seriously
>reconsider my hobby of choice if there are laws regulating how I deal
>with the players on my free MUD. I mean, the worst case I'd imagine is
>an imp shutting down his MUD in disgust and then getting sued for
>that... and don't laugh, I swear in Europe we here about lots of even
>stranger lawsuits started in the USA...
I have zero doubt that this case will someday happen. It could easily
happen today--what about a case where a MOO shuts down and the admin
deletes everything, and people (justly) claim that they contributed
the majority of the content and code, thereby making it no longer the
admin's to do anything with? Quite possible, if the MOO does not have
a solid licensing document to handle the legal issues of
contributions.
>Again, you are probably correct, but note that I'm a mere MUD staffer,
>not an admin, and don't plan to become one in the future.
Staffer, admin, whatever. You're not a common player, correct?
>That being said, of course there's no such thing as a Mudding axiom. As
>has been pointed out further in the thread, applying mathematical
>rationale to social interaction is risky at best. So what? No axiom.
>But then again, no universal declaration of avatar rights either - I'd
>rather point out to the thread about the MUD Advisory Board as some
>possible solution to keep ethical conduct of MUD administrations on the
>side of the good faith relationship I mentionned in my initial response
>to you.
Again--the article does NOT declare the rights of players. In fact, it
says that said declaration is silly. It's mostly intended to make
people think in exactly the manner this branch of the thread is. :)
-Raph