Daytime Islandia - Better than Another World
Stephen McNatton
by a few people with sniveling little feminine attitudes!
Because of a personal grudge Kathleen refused to make the town square
!dark unless amethyst left it!
I'll post about a new mud that will be free from this stupid personal
meddling based on the moods of the wizards this coming monday.
The best mud is a wizardless mud!
tek
--
Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irku...@ecuvm1.bitnet
East Carolina University internet:t...@ms.uky.edu
Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
Russ Nightfall Smith
>I can't believe the fact that daytime Islandia is being destroyed
>by a few people with sniveling little feminine attitudes!
Sexist. Not the way to get people to listen.
>Because of a personal grudge Kathleen refused to make the town square
>!dark unless amethyst left it!
Assumptions. Possibly incorrect, but assumptions. However, as we are
about to see, it doesn't matter.
>I'll post about a new mud that will be free from this stupid personal
>meddling based on the moods of the wizards this coming monday.
>The best mud is a wizardless mud!
Incorrect. Kathleen owns (or owned) Town Square. As for your theory,
however, the worst mud is a wizardless mud. Assuming that people will
keep themselves out of trouble is fallacious.
>tek
--
--Russ "Nightfall" Smith-- | Wait, I'm LIVING my childhood power fantasies!
Randomized Ranter for Bob! |-----------------------------------------------
ru...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu | DISCLAIMER1: Even smileys make my face ache...
Flame Dodger,1988 Olympics | DISCLAIMER2: IMHO IMHO IMHO. There, I said it!
Thomas E. Kunselman
>t...@ms.uky.edu (Stephen McNatton) writes:
>>I can't believe the fact that daytime Islandia is being destroyed
>>by a few people with sniveling little feminine attitudes!
>Sexist. Not the way to get people to listen.
Hardly a sexist attitude considering that I apply the term to
males equally as females. I just decided not to use the word
for it on this family bb.
>>Because of a personal grudge Kathleen refused to make the town square
>>!dark unless amethyst left it!
>Assumptions. Possibly incorrect, but assumptions. However, as we are
>about to see, it doesn't matter.
Where do you get off saying this is an assumption? It is an assumption
on your part calling this an assumption! I asked kathleen to change
the town square back to !dark, knowing that she owned it. She refused
to change the town square to !dark unless i could get Amethyst to leave.
Several people were in the tree house at the time.
>>I'll post about a new mud that will be free from this stupid personal
>>meddling based on the moods of the wizards this coming monday.
>>The best mud is a wizardless mud!
>Incorrect. Kathleen owns (or owned) Town Square. As for your theory,
>however, the worst mud is a wizardless mud. Assuming that people will
>keep themselves out of trouble is fallacious.
Oh how true. Pardon me for believing that simple mud users could
ever know what is good for them.
It's negative attitudes like yours that seems to be brainwashing
everyone into believe that people are basically evil. After meeting
hundreds of mud characters I have met maybe 2 that I have found overly
annoying and they were controllable by moving to another area of the mud
that was locked to them. Less than 1% of the players being bothersome
sounds pretty good to me!
There are several things you can do to avoid players you don't like.
And it sure as hell beats whining to your wizard butt buddy that
someone is bothering you and please threaten them.
To try and quote something said on Islandia today, "I knew power
made people's heads swell, but Islandia is turning into a
Macy's Day Parade!"
!*Child of Chaos*!*
It seems to be a growing trend though..
There are the pro-Random faction.. then the anti-Random faction.
Then there are those who won't take sides. Oh well.
Um, don't bother posting flames to E-mail past midnight
tonight, PDT, since this account won't be around to read it.
Happy flaming. :)
- Storm
<-----------
Nope, no interesting .sig here folks. Nope nope nope.
8) 8) - *official Child of Chaos* -
--------------------------->
Jay Hinkelman
>There are the pro-Random faction.. then the anti-Random faction.
>Then there are those who won't take sides. Oh well.
I belong to the pre-Random faction, 'cuz I'm older than he is. Nyah.
8-) 8-) 8-)
Lord_Julius (Cerebus@Islandia, The_Doctor@FantaMUD)
--
Jay Hinkelman, a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, ja...@purccvm.bitnet
Insanity is what happens when your pillow gets tired of being fluffed.
DISCLAIMER: Right! I'll do you for that!
"Humans? Who said anything about humans?" -- Sebastian
Russ Nightfall Smith
Well, I'm not really in a position to defend the Islandia wizards, since I'm
not even sure who they all are, but here goes...
>ru...@uokmax.uucp (Russ "Nightfall" Smith) writes:
>>Sexist. Not the way to get people to listen.
>Hardly a sexist attitude considering that I apply the term to
>males equally as females. I just decided not to use the word
>for it on this family bb.
Using the word 'feminine' as an insult is sexist. No doubt at all.
>>>Because of a personal grudge Kathleen refused to make the town square
>>>!dark unless amethyst left it!
>>Assumptions. Possibly incorrect, but assumptions. However, as we are
>>about to see, it doesn't matter.
>Where do you get off saying this is an assumption? It is an assumption
>on your part calling this an assumption! I asked kathleen to change
>the town square back to !dark, knowing that she owned it. She refused
>to change the town square to !dark unless i could get Amethyst to leave.
>Several people were in the tree house at the time.
Why does that make it a personal grudge? Might she have some reason that
involved Amethyst? I'm not saying it wasn't, but I don't see how you are
sure.
And, as I said, this is not relevant to the discussion of wizards, because
Kathleen ain't one there.
>>Incorrect. Kathleen owns (or owned) Town Square. As for your theory,
>>however, the worst mud is a wizardless mud. Assuming that people will
>>keep themselves out of trouble is fallacious.
>Oh how true. Pardon me for believing that simple mud users could
>ever know what is good for them.
Thank you for ignoring the first part. And incidentally, I believe that
most users know what is good for them. I believe that a certain percentage
of mudders also think that true entertainment is pissing people off (and
they know who they are). And you think people should be subjected to that?
>It's negative attitudes like yours that seems to be brainwashing
>everyone into believe that people are basically evil. After meeting
>hundreds of mud characters I have met maybe 2 that I have found overly
>annoying and they were controllable by moving to another area of the mud
>that was locked to them. Less than 1% of the players being bothersome
>sounds pretty good to me!
It's negative attitudes like mine that provide a balance for people who are
convinced that everything will work out beautifully, no matter what, as
long as there's nobody around to impose any order whatsoever. As far as
your statistics, I'll leave them to Halloway to talk about. <chuckle>
>There are several things you can do to avoid players you don't like.
>And it sure as hell beats whining to your wizard butt buddy that
>someone is bothering you and please threaten them.
Is it necessary to invoke a term like "butt buddy"? I don't know whether
to take this as sheer crassness or actual homophobia or what...
At any rate, I disagree, but I realize that this is not something that can
be solved, since it's just opinions, and there's no right or wrong. But
hey, couldn't the point have been made a different way? For instance,
a different approach than the following might be in order...
>To try and quote something said on Islandia today, "I knew power
>made people's heads swell, but Islandia is turning into a
>Macy's Day Parade!"
Just remember...if you don't like the place, you can always hit the bricks.
>--
>Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
>Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irku...@ecuvm1.bitnet
>East Carolina University internet:t...@ms.uky.edu
>Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
--
--Russ "Nightfall" Smith-- | "Grow up...Stop whining." --Tim Maroney, to me
Three Martin
>I can't believe the fact that daytime Islandia is being destroyed
>by a few people with sniveling little feminine attitudes!
What a shamelessly bigoted demeaning small-minded masculine insult.
Bruce S. Woodcock
>I can't believe the fact that daytime Islandia is being destroyed
>by a few people with sniveling little feminine attitudes!
>
Huh? I don't see what you describe below as being feminist....
>Because of a personal grudge Kathleen refused to make the town square
>!dark unless amethyst left it!
>
Well, I do agree with you that's silly. In fact, ownership of public areas by
non-wizards is often silly. Many of the people abuse the power of owning it,
when they don't have the responsibility enough to use it wisely. Perhaps the
wizards should be more selective about who owns certain areas. I'm not saying
this is was the problem in this case, as you give sketchy facts. But ownership
of public areas is a problem which should be addressed.
>I'll post about a new mud that will be free from this stupid personal
>meddling based on the moods of the wizards this coming monday.
>The best mud is a wizardless mud!
>
>tek
>
Your mud sounds interesting, but I'm not sure "The best mud is a wizardless
mud!" In any case, I'd be glad to take a look around once it's up.
| Actually, life IS a bed of roses, but somebody| Justice, tempered by |
| forgot to remove the thorns... | tolerance, honed by humor, |
| Internet: ster...@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu| leavened with love. |
| Islandia: telnet 128.2.250.158 2323 | Sir Bruce Sterling, Paladin |
Thomas E. Kunselman
Three, you are absolutely right and I apologize for this.
I had meant to use the word bitch.
And before I get flamed for that, let me explain that bitch does not
have anything to do with gender, but is an attitude. It just has its
roots in gender.
I actually can't believe I used the word feminine. I again apologize
for that.
Tek
Thomas E. Kunselman
>>Where do you get off saying this is an assumption? It is an assumption
>>on your part calling this an assumption! I asked kathleen to change
>>the town square back to !dark, knowing that she owned it. She refused
>>to change the town square to !dark unless i could get Amethyst to leave.
>>Several people were in the tree house at the time.
>Why does that make it a personal grudge? Might she have some reason that
>involved Amethyst? I'm not saying it wasn't, but I don't see how you are
>sure.
>And, as I said, this is not relevant to the discussion of wizards, because
>Kathleen ain't one there.
Whether Kathleen is a wizard or not was immaterial since she owned a
room that is considered 'public' since everyone has to walk through it
on the way out of #0.
I find this behaviour inappropriate whatever amethyst had done. Turning the
town square dark would not solve anything. Punishing the many for the crimes
of the few is ok tho, I suppose. Someone is going to do something bad,
so we might as well make sure that no one can do anything.
>Thank you for ignoring the first part. And incidentally, I believe that
>most users know what is good for them. I believe that a certain percentage
>of mudders also think that true entertainment is pissing people off (and
>they know who they are). And you think people should be subjected to that?
My point was that if a player is pissing you off you can take care of it
yourself by going somewhere the player can't follow. When I get sick
from the barfomatic cuddlers I often run off to someplace other than
the treehouse to places that are locked against people carrying furry
society cards. So there is no one forcing you to stand there and be pissed
off. However you seem to be all for forcing other people to do things
just because you don't happen to like what they are doing. I don't
happen to like a lot of songs that I hear on the radio, I just change
channels. So if you are in a room with a player that annoys you,
just change rooms!
>It's negative attitudes like mine that provide a balance for people who are
>convinced that everything will work out beautifully, no matter what, as
>long as there's nobody around to impose any order whatsoever. As far as
>your statistics, I'll leave them to Halloway to talk about. <chuckle>
You are entitled to your negative opinions and balance, however that
isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about the ability of
players to resolve their own conflicts rather than have some macy day
parade wizard sort them out as he/she sees fit. I believe that players can
sort these things out themselves. You obviously don't. I never said
there wouldn't be any problems, I only said that there didn't need to be
wizards to impose their own and their friends wills on regular players.
>>There are several things you can do to avoid players you don't like.
>>And it sure as hell beats whining to your wizard butt buddy that
>>someone is bothering you and please threaten them.
>Is it necessary to invoke a term like "butt buddy"? I don't know whether
>to take this as sheer crassness or actual homophobia or what...
Anyone who knows me would tell you that it is actual homophobia.
>At any rate, I disagree, but I realize that this is not something that can
>be solved, since it's just opinions, and there's no right or wrong. But
>hey, couldn't the point have been made a different way? For instance,
>a different approach than the following might be in order...
Well butt buddy had the exact connotations that I wanted to portray.
I can't really think of any words that portray corrupt intimacy like
that term does. (Note, this does not mean that anal intercourse between
consenting individuals is corrupt, it is just that the particular words
in question have come to that meaning.)
>Just remember...if you don't like the place, you can always hit the bricks.
Hit the bricks? Obviously someone who cares about his/her players and
values their input on the game. The good ole love it or leave it attitude.
Of course if you love something you should want to improve it. I'm sure
there are those who would consider it an improvement having me off of
Islandia:-)
Of course some people find that they like everything the same. Differences
scare them, and they want to maintain everything nice and quiet and level.
Stagnation versus Progress. Maintain the status quo or move forward
into new realms of thinking to help keep your mind open.
If people want to stagnate they are more than welcome to do it to themselves.
Just don't drag me and the rest of society down with you! Ick!
>--Russ "Nightfall" Smith-- | "Grow up...Stop whining." --Tim Maroney, to me
>Randomized Ranter for Bob! |-----------------------------------------------
>ru...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu | DISCLAIMER1: Even smileys make my face ache...
>Flame Dodger,1988 Olympics | DISCLAIMER2: IMHO IMHO IMHO. There, I said it!
amol...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
In article <tek.64...@s.ms.uky.edu>, t...@ms.uky.edu (Thomas E. Kunselman)
writes (in various responses to Random):
>
> Whether Kathleen is a wizard or not was immaterial since she owned a
> room that is considered 'public' since everyone has to walk through it
> on the way out of #0.
>
OK, but then why did you follow your remarks about Kathleen with the
suggestion that wizards are a bad idea? Perhaps we should *really* get rid of
ownership. MarxMUD. Everyone owns everything...
>
> My point was that if a player is pissing you off you can take care of it
> yourself by going somewhere the player can't follow.
> [..]
> So if you are in a room with a player that annoys you,
> just change rooms!
Excellent advice, which I have occasionally not taken soon enough for
my own good. Also keep in mind that it's a *game* and don't forget how to
spell QUIT.
>
> Hit the bricks? Obviously someone who cares about his/her players and
> values their input on the game. The good ole love it or leave it attitude.
Umm, scan the following, and see if it looks familiar (hint: look up a
few lines):
So if you are in a game with a player that annoys you,
just change games!
Neat, huh?
Andrew/bob@TinyHELL and that OTHER Mud.
Jay Hinkelman
>>>however, the worst mud is a wizardless mud. Assuming that people will
>>>keep themselves out of trouble is fallacious.
>>Oh how true. Pardon me for believing that simple mud users could
>>ever know what is good for them.
>And incidentally, I believe that most users know what is good for
>them. I believe that a certain percentage of mudders also think that
>true entertainment is pissing people off (and they know who they are).
>And you think people should be subjected to that?
First, in regards to your original statement, Russ, there is
absolutely no trouble a person can get into on a MUD, so having
wizards to keep people out of trouble is kinda silly.
Second, if someone comes on the MUD and starts pissing people off, all
they have to do is ignore him/her or leave until he/she is gone.
Think about Candy... think about Hurin... they constantly piss people
off (in the case of Candy, past tense). So what? People ignore them.
People /gag them. People laugh at them for being twits. People log
off the game until later.
For God's sake, it's only a game! There's nobody out there who can't
simply find something else to do. There are plenty of morons like
that at RealLIFE amusement parks; I don't see any MoronPolice there,
but people still go to amusement parks anyway.
In short, the idea that wizards have to be around to keep some sort of
"law and order" based on subjective claims of annoyance is ridiculous.
I'm not advocating the elimination of wizards (I am one on a MUD 8-),
but I think this entire discussion has been missing the point.
Heresiarch
writes:
[lots of stuff about the town square, to dark or to !dark deleted]
tek, i think you have no idea how much fun dark rooms are. i rather like them.
nymph used to set the rec room dark on mud original when people left too much
of a mess. it was more fun that four cats and one ball of string.
> off. However you seem to be all for forcing other people to do things
> just because you don't happen to like what they are doing. I don't
> happen to like a lot of songs that I hear on the radio, I just change
> channels. So if you are in a room with a player that annoys you,
> just change rooms!
so don't hang out in the town square. or did random, with his corrupt wizard
powers, force you to play there? (btw, there are no wizards on islandia, and i
haven't seen a tinker force anyone to do anything recently. are you paying
attention?)
> --
> Thomas Kunselman {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!tek
> Planning and Institutional Research bitnet: irku...@ecuvm1.bitnet
> East Carolina University internet:t...@ms.uky.edu
> Greenville, NC 27858 (Educate, Don't Legislate!)
ashne
______________________________________________________________________________
Organization: Grand People's Fascist Monarchy of Nebutu (The Sprawling Chaos)
all the time you know she's smiling|upgrade-(noun, verb, obscenity) to replace
you'll be on your knees tomorrow.__|software that works with that which doesn't
________________________-steely dan|e.g. wesleyan computing center, multinet.
Russ Nightfall Smith
insulting wizards with wild abandon.
As far as the accusation that I believe in wild abuse of authority on my mud,
well, I think history speaks for itself.
And finally, as far as "love it or leave it"...that's how I have to feel about
something as established as the structure of Islandia. I don't believe that
these crass, sexist, homophobic, etc etc etc comments are really much of a way
to improve Islandia...just a way to try and make your proposed mud look better.
Islandia is probably not going to change because you are rude to their
wizards, so my suggestion stands: if you can't bear playing a mud with these
people in charge, then don't. Likewise, if someone feels that they couldn't
put up with playing a mud I run (and you know who you are), then they are
welcome to not apply for TinyHELL.
Suggestions are always welcome. Self-admittedly bigoted insults are not.
--
--Russ "Nightfall" Smith-- | Wait, I'm LIVING my childhood power fantasies!
Russ Nightfall Smith
>In article <1990Jun20....@uokmax.uucp> ru...@uokmax.uucp (Russ "Nightfall" Smith) writes:
>First, in regards to your original statement, Russ, there is
>absolutely no trouble a person can get into on a MUD, so having
>wizards to keep people out of trouble is kinda silly.
All I have to say: I was phoned once long distance about some individual doing
their best to spam the database (and doing a good job of it, I might add).
Remember that next time you think that people can't get into mischief.
>Second, if someone comes on the MUD and starts pissing people off, all
>they have to do is ignore him/her or leave until he/she is gone.
If all they are doing is being insulting. At any rate, there's the point...
people who are determined to irritate trouble CAN get destructive, CAN
require attention, etc etc etc. I'll not bother to include any more; my
point is made.
--
--Russ "Nightfall" Smith-- | Wait, I'm LIVING my childhood power fantasies!
Russ Nightfall Smith
>Tell me, Random, will you flame EVERY article posted here? :)
All but this one.
>There are the pro-Random faction.. then the anti-Random faction.
I don't see that at all. There are those who are bored enought to post, and
those who are bored enough to post.
>Then there are those who won't take sides. Oh well.
Oh yeah, and those who are bored enough to post.
>- Storm
Well, at least he was bored enough to post.
><-----------
> Nope, no interesting .sig here folks. Nope nope nope.
> 8) 8) - *official Child of Chaos* -
> --------------------------->
Random,
Obviously bored enough to post.
--subliminal, but not subtle--
Jay Hinkelman
In article <1990Jun20.1...@uokmax.uucp>, ru...@uokmax.uucp (Russ "Nightfall" Smith) writes:
> All I have to say: I was phoned once long distance about some
> individual doing their best to spam the database (and doing a good job
> of it, I might add). Remember that next time you think that people
> can't get into mischief.
The infamous Guest Account of TinyHELL I. I was there, I remember it.
Problems like that are SO minor and SO far inbetween that saying you
have to have wizards around for that is STILL silly.
Anyway... Cheers!
--
Jay Hinkelman, a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, ja...@purccvm.bitnet
"Well, that was a piece of cake, eh K-9?"
"Piece of cake, Master? Radial slice of baked confection ...
coefficient of relevance to Key to Time: zero."
Tom Egelston
I guess I'm now another one who is bored enough to post... :-)
In article <11...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Jay Hinkelman) writes:
>In article <1990Jun20....@uokmax.uucp> ru...@uokmax.uucp (Russ "Nightfall" Smith) writes:
>>>>however, the worst mud is a wizardless mud. Assuming that people will
>>>>keep themselves out of trouble is fallacious.
>
>>>Oh how true. Pardon me for believing that simple mud users could
>>>ever know what is good for them.
>
>>And incidentally, I believe that most users know what is good for
>>them. I believe that a certain percentage of mudders also think that
>>true entertainment is pissing people off (and they know who they are).
>>And you think people should be subjected to that?
>
>First, in regards to your original statement, Russ, there is
>absolutely no trouble a person can get into on a MUD, so having
>wizards to keep people out of trouble is kinda silly.
I disagree. "Trouble" on a MUD can be defined similarly to "trouble"
in RealLIFE (tm). Obviously, there are some things which one can do to get
in "trouble" in RealLIFE which are not a problem on a MUD. Things like robbery
and killing and such. However, in the RealWORLD (tm), there are still crimes,
social crimes, if you will, which do no physical damage to the victims. For
example, if I am out with my girlfriend in any public place, and we decide to
have sex on the spot, we will be arrested and "in trouble." However,
we can do the same thing in a private place and it is not a problem. I view
the MUD situation the same way: If it is illegal for me to do something in
a public place in the RealWORLD (public=Anywhere people regularly gather or
pass through) then that act should not be performed in a public area on a MUD,
either. Some, however, are not so kind and considerate to others, and that's
why we need Wizard's willing to take an active role in the operation of their
respective MUDs.
I do, however, believe that there is a limit to the role which the Wizard
should take. IMHO, and this is, in fact, only my opinion since I am not and
have not ever been a Wizard, that limit should be defined as in RealLIFE.
According to the laws of this nation, there are some things which cannot be
done in public places. I feel that those same things should be enforced in
the public areas in the MUDs.
>Second, if someone comes on the MUD and starts pissing people off, all
>they have to do is ignore him/her or leave until he/she is gone.
>Think about Candy... think about Hurin... they constantly piss people
>off (in the case of Candy, past tense). So what? People ignore them.
>People /gag them. People laugh at them for being twits. People log
>off the game until later.
All true. But the point is that we *shouldn't* have to do any of those
things. I go to great lengths to insure that I am not interfering with the
ability of anyone else to enjoy the game, and I demand the same of everyone
else. I don't think that this is too much to ask.
>For God's sake, it's only a game! There's nobody out there who can't
>simply find something else to do. There are plenty of morons like
>that at RealLIFE amusement parks; I don't see any MoronPolice there,
>but people still go to amusement parks anyway.
I worked at an amusement park. Try grabbing someone and behaving as the
"Candy"s do and I'm willing to bet you'll see some Police or Security people
pretty quickly. I'd also bet that you'd be at very least thrown out of the
park. For the intents of this discussion, that's exactly akin to being toaded.
>In short, the idea that wizards have to be around to keep some sort of
>"law and order" based on subjective claims of annoyance is ridiculous.
>I'm not advocating the elimination of wizards (I am one on a MUD 8-),
>but I think this entire discussion has been missing the point.
"Annoyance" is one thing. Talking too loud is annoying. I think most
Wizard's are interested in stopping "offensiveness," which is another matter
entirely.
>--
>Jay Hinkelman, a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, ja...@purccvm.bitnet
> Insanity is what happens when your pillow gets tired of being fluffed.
> DISCLAIMER: Right! I'll do you for that!
> "Humans? Who said anything about humans?" -- Sebastian
--
Tom Egelston Internet: t...@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
Disclaimer: Don't get so stressed!! It's nothing but a bunch of 1's and 0's...
"Though my eyes could see, I still was a blind man,
Though my mind could think, I still was a mad man..." -- Kansas
Jay Hinkelman
>>First, in regards to your original statement, Russ, there is
>>absolutely no trouble a person can get into on a MUD, so having
>>wizards to keep people out of trouble is kinda silly.
> I disagree. "Trouble" on a MUD can be defined similarly to
>"trouble" in RealLIFE (tm). [...]
>the same thing in a private place and it is not a problem. I view the
>MUD situation the same way: If it is illegal for me to do something in
>a public place in the RealWORLD (public=Anywhere people regularly
>gather or pass through) then that act should not be performed in a
>public area on a MUD, either.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference here; you cannot expect
people to constantly avoid public places in RealLIFE. If you want to
get to the store, you have to cross the parking lot. MUDs aren't that
way. If what you find going on in the Town Square offends you, you
can go elsewhere or simply log off.
Unlike RealLIFE, there are no important actions that other people can
interfere with. Like I said, it's only a game. People have to go in
public in the RealWORLD; they don't have to do it in a MUD, because
there is no necessity for any particular MUD to exist (in fact, there
is no necessity for MUDs to exist at all).
> Some, however, are not so kind and
>considerate to others, and that's why we need Wizard's willing to take
>an active role in the operation of their respective MUDs.
In the RealWORLD the population is much more stable than it is in a
MUD. This allows the formation of things like democracies. In this
way, policies and laws can (ideally) be set concerning killing,
raping, public sex and obscenity, etc. that represent the will of the
majority.
But with MUDs there is no such stable population base. The game is
not always running; some people leave for the summer when they are
away from school; others are only on at certain times of the day; and
there are always new people entering the MUD. (Well, supposedly,
right Random? 8-) Therefore the best the wizards can do is make their
OWN judgments about what should and should not be allowed in public
places. This means that "taking an active role in the operation of
their respective MUDs", as you describe it, becomes near totalitarian,
and not by the choice of the wizards involved (usually 8-).
The main point remains, however: if I'm in a REAL public place, and
someone is having sex on a park bench, I have a right to complain to
someone of higher authority, moreso than I do if I catch someone at it
in the Unicorn Point Topiary. Why? Because I can't log off of real
life. (At least, not temporarily. 8-)
> All true. But the point is that we *shouldn't* have to do any of those
>things.
Maybe not. But neither do we have the right to demand that we don't
have to do any of those things. It's a free country, and in a sense
MUDs are private enough that we can do what we like there.
>I go to great lengths to insure that I am not interfering with the
>ability of anyone else to enjoy the game, and I demand the same of everyone
>else. I don't think that this is too much to ask.
ASKING the same of everybody else is not too much. DEMANDING it is.
> "Annoyance" is one thing. Talking too loud is annoying. I think most
>Wizard's are interested in stopping "offensiveness," which is another matter
>entirely.
I don't think most wizards are interested in that at all. I think
most of them are just interested in having fun, and as long as no
player interferes with THEIR ability to do so, then that's fine. And
that's the way it should be.
--
Jay Hinkelman, a...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, ja...@purccvm.bitnet
Mike Prudence
I think it's great that you can all get so worked up over a game. Seems to me
that there is a lot of behavioural research material here - any takers ?
A suggestion :
Rather than quoting and requoting and rerequoting, why not just write
down your opinions. If you want to argue, use the phone. It's much
more satisfying.
I think there are actually some issues to be discussed here, rather than
trying to beat each other down.
Come on. We are all adults, after all.
Today's Issue is :-
"What is acceptable behaviour in a MUD situation. Does it differ from
a Real Life situation ?"
Let's stop arguing and start discussing.
Cheers,
Mike.
"Sanity is like a drink at a mountain stream."
Thenomain
and start making relative sense, I decided to put my opinions in relation to
his, hoping that I either can say something interesting or make myself look
semi-intelligent. (Okay, so I'm into masocistic self-flaming. :)
In article <2003...@otter.hpl.hp.com> m...@otter.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence) writes:
>I think it's great that you can all get so worked up over a game. Seems to me
>that there is a lot of behavioural research material here - any takers ?
Would you believe I have been considering going into Psychology for just this
reason? I belong to a multi-line BBS here in Columbus (yes, we have one! :)
and this is not the first time I have seen something like this. Not to this
extent, no. But something like that or IRC [Internet Relay Chat for those
who do not know] or the MUDs or Compuserve's CB lines seems to bring out
aspects about people you would never see most of the time. Even newsgroups
and BBSs tend to get people riled up.
Now, if I was actually someone who knew something about psychology, I would
have already done something about that at this point. But, truth be known, I'm
just another CS Refrosh who likes to piddle around in semi-virtual worlds.
>A suggestion :
[Here's where he mentions about not quoting, which can actually be benificial.
With the bulk of posts that go through some Newsgroups, you HAVE to quote just
to remember what you're talking about!]
>Come on. We are all adults, after all.
Now that you've said that, some of us will listen.
>Today's Issue is :-
> "What is acceptable behaviour in a MUD situation. Does it differ from
> a Real Life situation ?"
That's a real problem, you see. Sure MUDding is a game, but it's far more
than a game. There are actual people there with motives they might even not
know about. (If any Islandier remembers my "tinyBreakdown" some three months
ago, there's a good example of this.) Some think it's not a game, but actual
personal interaction, and they make it become a larger part of their lives
than it really should.
What is acceptable in a MUD situation? Who's to know? Is it a real problem
or just another part of this "game," a problem that someone just decided to
come up with?
In my own personal viewpoint, MUDs are just a sort of sped-up life. Everything
is just as chaotic, just as confusing, but it goes along so much faster that
being caught in the flow can... well, can really dick you over. Ever been
white-water rafting or kyaking and lost your paddle?
>Cheers,
>
>Mike.
>
>"Sanity is like a drink at a mountain stream."
Hey, nice analogy. Mind if I plagarize it? It's oh-so vogue nowadays. :)
-=-
-- Thenomain -- Kent Jenkins -- "I'm a figment of my own --
-- jen...@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu -- imagination, thank you." -Kaj --
-- ken...@cis.ohio-state.edu -- [Why are they giving me all --
-- jen...@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu -- of these accounts? To use?!] --
Ken Burnside
I find it amusing that people can raise a dichotomy between 'it's just a game'
and 'the people on it are real'. The emotional attachments that can be made
on a MUD ARE real...and as binding as you choose to make them. Not just in
a negative sense, as with the flurry of SBS bashing on this newsgroup, but in
a positive sense as well. I've seen one marriage form out of the MUDs, and
according to rumour, Random and Chrysalis met over the BBSs in Oklahoma. I've
seen several people who've been traumatized in life re-assemble themselves with the help of friends through the relative ananimity of the MUDs. (or on
BITnet Realy, or IRC, or on a BBS...or even Usenes. Read ta;k.rape sometime,
and you may get the picture.)
Thenomain's comment about MUD's being like real-life, only accelerated is only partially true. It's more like real-life in concentrate. The emotions and
stresses are all there...but so are a number of the joys.
Here's a quickie question: How valid are Tiny Marriages? How long do they
last on average? Are there any TinyDivorces that are as formalized?
Do TinyMarriages last as long as Tiny (or Net) Grudges?
Just providing more grist forthe mill...
Yorik/Ken Burnside
Mike Prudence
Hey - real discussion at last. Thanks, guys and gals.
So to the discussion (warning - LONG) :-
As part of my job (research) I find myself communicating with people over long
distances via e-mail. I must be the world's number one fan of e-mail. It's
great. BUT it has problems. My experience has been that disagreements and
misunderstandings occur _far more easily_ on such a limited bandwidth medium
than they would do in real life. This is simply because human communication
is so rich in mannerisms, facial expressions, gestures. Just a nod can convey
as much meaning as a sentence in a normal conversation.
So to MUDs. These share the same limitation as e-mail - limited bandwidth.
All we have to play with are ASCII characters. Netiquette has developed such
useful aids as smileys :) and I have even noticed abbreviations for common
phrases coming in to use in MUDs. The example that springs to mind is the
acronym "BRB". This means 'Be Right Back', but implies that some real life
intrusion has forced the speaker to leave the MUD for an unspecified, but
short, period of time. We assume that the speaker has not left because of
something we said or did, and that when s/he returns, things will continue
exactly where we left off. All that in three letters !
That's my understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
But let's take a typical situation in a MUD, with three or more characters
in one place. For a start, you get more than one conversation going on at
once - often on completely different threads. Try doing that in real life !
What tools do we have for communication ? Well, there's the "say" command,
and the ':' command - I'll call that the "do" command.
The "say" command has much the same limitations as a newsgroup or e-mail. It
is difficult to convey humor, sarcasm, irony etc with any reliability. Sure,
you can throw in smiley's, but what if you forget ? One remark taken the wrong
way can lead to an incredible drift between what speaker A thinks is going on
and what speaker B thinks. Unlike real life, we have little chance to correct
any mistakes because the bandwidth is so limited. I reckon that we therefore
have to pick and choose our words with more care in a MUD than in real life.
I often find myself typing in a coupla lines, then furiously backspacing over
some of it to make a correction.
Of course, the other thing that can happen is that the person you are talking
to leaves the room before you have finished typing. Very frustrating.
A suggestion : read back what you have typed into your "say" command before
you hit <RETURN>.
The "do" command is our real license to create a fantasy world. I can cause my
character to turn into a bottle of beer using this command. Similarly I can
make untoward advances that can't really be fended off unless the person I
am molesting leaves the room. Most of the danger in a MUD arises because of
this command. The suggestion above applies more to a "do" than to a "say", I
think, although "do"s tend to be shorter than "says" and so less likely to
be ambiguous.
I agree with previous posters about the 'speed' of MUD life. This is just
because the basic rules of our little 'alternative reality' are different.
Building is easy. Travel is quick and free. 'Money' has no real meaning -
if you want money to build, people generally give it to you.
Maybe it is that last point that makes the difference. Our world is so based
on money - that's how status is judged, in the main - that suddenly having
that goal removed leaves us floundering. What do we do if we can have as much
money and property as we want ? What is the most valuable thing in a MUD ?
Suddenly I realise there are more issues here than I have fingers to type.
More discussion, please. Let's hear some thoughts from the silent majority.
Cheers,
Mike.
The Wanderer
>Here's a quickie question: How valid are Tiny Marriages? How long do they
>last on average? Are there any TinyDivorces that are as formalized?
they just cost a tad more!
>Do TinyMarriages last as long as Tiny (or Net) Grudges?
....I can even tailor-make a marriage to be a short-duration one....a built-in
self destruct, eh? no need to worry about fighting when you know it will all
be over soon!
>Just providing more grist forthe mill...
...toungue [ranging from somewhat to very much] in cheek...
Rev Dkr Nick LaRG0, ASC
The Church of the SubGenius
--
Disclaimer: "I'm the only one foolish enough to claim these opinions as mine."
Reality: cri...@wpi.wpi.edu Outside: 100 Institute Rd #296
cri...@wpi.ibit ...!wpi!crimson Worcester MA 01609
Blue Blaze Irregular Havoc In The Society: Bronnton of Atlantia
croc...@aludra.usc.edu
For God's sake, it's only a game! There's nobody out there who can't
simply find something else to do. There are plenty of morons like
that at RealLIFE amusement parks; I don't see any MoronPolice there,
but people still go to amusement parks anyway.
Bad analogy here. In amusement parks in RealLife they have operators,
and management, and they reserve the right to throw out people who are
being obnoxious or doing stupid things that threaten someone else's
enjoyment/safety. This is one thing that Wizards can do, which normal
players can't. Even if everyone on a MUD decided one person was being
extremely annoying, there would be no way to get rid of him/her
without a Wizard.
CJ
Thomas E. Kunselman
>Today's Issue is :-
> "What is acceptable behaviour in a MUD situation. Does it differ from
> a Real Life situation ?"
>Let's stop arguing and start discussing.
>Cheers,
>Mike.
What is acceptable behaviour in a real life situation?
Thomas E. Kunselman
>#include <picture.of.person.jumping.up.and.down.with.joy>
>Hey - real discussion at last. Thanks, guys and gals.
>So to the discussion (warning - LONG) :-
>As part of my job (research) I find myself communicating with people over long
>distances via e-mail. I must be the world's number one fan of e-mail. It's
>great. BUT it has problems. My experience has been that disagreements and
>misunderstandings occur _far more easily_ on such a limited bandwidth medium
>than they would do in real life. This is simply because human communication
>is so rich in mannerisms, facial expressions, gestures. Just a nod can convey
>as much meaning as a sentence in a normal conversation.
This is very true about the limitations of electronic communication.
There has been research into this area done by several individuals.
The Rand Corporation has some publications on using electronic mail
effectively to avoid misunderstandings and such.
I'll try and post some article references if anyone is interested? This
discussions is probably better off somewhere other than alt.mud tho.
>But let's take a typical situation in a MUD, with three or more characters
>in one place. For a start, you get more than one conversation going on at
>once - often on completely different threads. Try doing that in real life !
>What tools do we have for communication ? Well, there's the "say" command,
>and the ':' command - I'll call that the "do" command.
I have only been using muds for about six months, but have been using electronic
chat programs since 82. In the chat environment any sort of meaningful
conversation tends to begin to breakdown when the number of users is greater
than 3 precisely because of this multiple simultaeneous conversation problem.
All sorts of cross conversations begin to noise up the public channel.
The only way to do a structured conversation in an electronic medium is to have
a moderator and speaking rules. I've been involved in discussions where
ideas on how to accomplish this were being discussed. Several different
types of organization are possible depdning on the type of 'electronic meeting'
that is taking place. A meeting could be run according to Robert's Rules of
Order, with the moderator or chair or whomever granting the floor to speakers
and then speakers having control over it for a certain time, beging able
to yield it to oethers, etc. Only the person on the floor would have
his/her messages broadcast publicly, everything else would be private.
Similarly for a panel discussion, where the audience can only listen and
perhaps flag the moderators attention with a question that would be permitted
to the panel. I think forumnet will eventually have these or similar
constructs built into it as it evolves. It already has the concept of a
channel moderator who can restrict the group to certain individuals.
>The "say" command has much the same limitations as a newsgroup or e-mail. It
>is difficult to convey humor, sarcasm, irony etc with any reliability. Sure,
>you can throw in smiley's, but what if you forget ? One remark taken the wrong
>way can lead to an incredible drift between what speaker A thinks is going on
>and what speaker B thinks. Unlike real life, we have little chance to correct
>any mistakes because the bandwidth is so limited. I reckon that we therefore
>have to pick and choose our words with more care in a MUD than in real life.
>I often find myself typing in a coupla lines, then furiously backspacing over
>some of it to make a correction.
One of the problems of email is the immediacy of it. Conventional memos
are often carefully thought out and reread before they are mailed.
Email tends not to go through this process. I know when I am sending email I
don't give it the careful consideration it should have. If you file your
email and read it an hour later before sending it things would be much
more clearer to yourself. I'm very guilty of not doing this, putting my
foot in my mouth re: sexist statements when I should have filed and waited until
I was less emotional.
>Maybe it is that last point that makes the difference. Our world is so based
>on money - that's how status is judged, in the main - that suddenly having
>that goal removed leaves us floundering. What do we do if we can have as much
>money and property as we want ? What is the most valuable thing in a MUD ?
This is a very interesting statement. I would argue that because money
has such a strong power in real life that it is carried over into this
virtual reality. Why else do you find people with 50,000 plus pennies?
To live comfortabley and do intense building a user does not need more than
5,000 pennies at a time.
But we still find people talking about how much money they have. We
find people auctioning themselves off for this useless money. We find people
hovering around wizards for whatever reasons, but ending up with these
large amounts of useless money.
An example that I repeatedly bring up is when we were discussing money
for phoenix and the discussion turned to the possibility of financial
institutions for credit and then a judicial system to enforce rules to
make people pay off their loans, etc. When money gets included, we start
talking the same old social intistutions and behaviours. What new things
would arise without money?
This is what I wonder. What would be the most valueable thing in a mud
if there was not money or wizards? Wizards also add this artificial
power structure that tends to gravitate people. Would the people who attract
these AK types be the ones who design the most creative objects and
spaces in a non-wizard mud?
What about a mud where limbo (#0) was not the center of the virtual
universe, but rather at the end of an arm? What sort of groupings of
people would occur? Would this help eliminate a town square or similar
room that is overcrowded?
>Suddenly I realise there are more issues here than I have fingers to type.
>More discussion, please. Let's hear some thoughts from the silent majority.
>Cheers,
>Mike.
Vintage Mutant Ganja Technerd
>
>What is acceptable behaviour in a real life situation?
Acceptable behavior in Real Life is behavior that doesn't
lead to one's compatriots having fantasies about eviscerating
one with a pair of rusty hedge clippers.
At the first threatening debut of rusty hedge clippers one
may rest assured one's behavior was most unacceptable.
Steven J Owens
>In article <2003...@otter.hpl.hp.com> m...@otter.hpl.hp.com (Mike Prudence) writes:
>>I think it's great that you can all get so worked up over a game. Seems to
>>me that there is a lot of behavioural research material here - any takers ?
>
>Would you believe I have been considering going into Psychology for just this
>Now, if I was actually someone who knew something about psychology, I would
>have already done something about that at this point. But, truth be known,
>I'm just another CS Refrosh who likes to piddle around in semi-virtual worlds.
Actually, the field you're looking for here is Communications. Yes,
I know, it's one of those abused soft-science fields that is little under-
stood by people not majoring in it, and vaguely remembered by people when
asked about it. But really, this is a new medium for human communications
evolving here, and there are some interesting aspects to it. If everything
in my life happens the way I'd like it to, I'll end up studying/working with
this kind of stuff (hopefully). But hey...
>>A suggestion :
>[Here's where he mentions about not quoting, which can actually be benificial.
>With the bulk of posts that go through some Newsgroups, you HAVE to quote just
>to remember what you're talking about!]
Correct. You *do* have to quote to put what you're saying in context.
After all, people might not be getting your article until days/weeks/months
after the other article has come and gone. You have to let 'em know what's
going on. But then again, nobody says you can't be concise and edit out the
non-pertinent quotes...
>>Today's Issue is :-
>> "What is acceptable behaviour in a MUD situation. Does it differ from
>> a Real Life situation ?"
>
>That's a real problem, you see. Sure MUDding is a game, but it's far more
>than a game. There are actual people there with motives they might even not
>know about. (If any Islandier remembers my "tinyBreakdown" some three months
>ago, there's a good example of this.) Some think it's not a game, but actual
>personal interaction, and they make it become a larger part of their lives
>than it really should.
It's a dilemma (ie, two equal alternatives, as in "on the horns of
the dilemma"). The answer is, behaviour in a MUD situation is the same as
behaviour in a Real Life situation - when, in the Real Life you speak of,
you're playing a game. After all, that's what it is, a game.
There are certain unnacceptable forms of behaviour in Real Life (tm)
that are acceptable in a game. Killing people, for example. It's all right
to kill somebody in the game, it's definitely not all right to kill them in
Real Life. On the other hand, for the most part it's not all right to be
rude in the game, just as it's not all right to be rude in real life.
Another aspect that you seem to miss is that it's BOTH a game AND
social interaction, varying with the circumstances and often one or the
other but not both (and sometimes both). Just like in real life, if there
were simple answers nobody'd be talking about it.
>In my own personal viewpoint, MUDs are just a sort of sped-up life. Every-
>thing is just as chaotic, just as confusing, but it goes along so much faster
>that being caught in the flow can... well, can really dick you over. Ever
>been white-water rafting or kyaking and lost your paddle?
Cogent point, and an interesting analogy :-)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Steven J. Owens scr...@unix.cis.pitt.edu jscr...@eklektik.pgh.pa.us
"And herein lies a great danger, for literary artists are notorious liars, and
their lies frequently become the source of people's convictions..."
- Essay in Literature: The Human Experience,
editors Richard Abcarian & Marvin Klotz
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jim Davis
Mike Prudence asked "What is the most valuable thing in a MUD ?".
Thomas E. Kunselman considered whether it might or might not be money
or "wizard" status, and concluded (I think) that it was neither. In
my opinion it is Status (call it fame, clout, reputation, or face).
In the real world you get status from wealth or talent or charisma.
In our virtual world wealth means little or nothing; talent might
mean building well; or it might mean high quality role playing; or
skilled conversation (I still remember the evening I heard a lecture
on the influence of Shinto on militarist attitudes in pre-war Japan.).
I am loath to describe charisma.
For the most part, then, Mud is not that different from the RW, except
that physical appearance is not a factor. One reason I think Mud is
so interesting is that it's a world for exploring social interaction,
with the great benefit that if you totally screw up, you can change
your name and your desc and try again, an option not easily available
in the RW.
Best wishes to all mudders
--
Internet: j...@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Phone: (617)-253-0314
USMail: E15-325, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139