rec.games.mud stuff
Patrick J Wetmore
I think that subdividing rec.games.mud into 4 different groups is a bit
much. The original goal (as I remember) was to have a group for people
who don't want to see the social postings that tend to flood r.g.m. The
traffic is low enough among the 'serious' posters such that one group
would suffice nicely.
To Bryant & his supporters:
rec.games.mud.mod sounds about exactly the same as rec.games.mud.info,
except with a different name. It's not fatal to agree with Random, you
know. It happens to everyone once in a while - go rec.games.mud.info.
To Matt Robinson & his supporters:
1) I called you yakker because, at the time, that was the only name
I could recall in association with you.
2) If you are not willing to drop r.g.m.d, perhaps you could amend your
RFD to include an alternate proposal (namely, r.g.m.info)? It seems
that the interest is certainly there, and I don't think that delaying
the vote for r.g.m.info for six months is going to help anybody.
There has also been some discussion about how no charters have been
proposed for anything. The following is the charter proposed
by jenn...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jennifer Smith), for rec.games.mud.info.
Newsgroup: rec.games.mud.info moderated
(The name rec.games.mud.announce was considered; it was decided that an
"info" group would be a more intuitive place for new users to look.)
Purpose: To serve as a moderated group for postings of a purely informational
nature. Examples:
o muds --
new muds, moving muds, dead muds
o code announcements --
code releases as well as requests for discussion; releases
can include both posting of patches and simply where to get it
o miscellaneous mud announcements --
announcements about conventions, parties both on-line and
off-line, hatchings, and in short any sort of misc announcement
that might be interesting for more than one given mud
o FAQ sheets --
including definitions of muds, how to get started, where
to find client and mud code, purpose of the groups, etc
o lists --
mud lists, mailing list lists, ftp site lists, bug report
lists, etc
o any other type of announcement, with follow-ups directed to
rec.games.mud.
The moderator should also be in charge of keeping track of various doc
files and manuals, and should be able to handle most of the typical new
user questions either by directing them to the proper sources or by
providing an answer themself.
General discussions should take place on rec.games.mud, unmoderated. This
hopefully will have the effect of letting readers get announcements without
having to wade through general discussion and possibly flames. Additionally,
a notice can be posted to rec.games.mud.info that a discussion on some
subject will be taking place in rec.games.mud, so people that are currently
unsubscribed to the latter group will be aware of any discussion taking place
in which they might be interested.
----
(above charter written by Jennifer Smith, jenn...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu)
Patrick J. Wetmore
fl...@rpi.edu
Curtis Yarvin
>In article <73...@brunix.UUCP> c...@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>|I think we should add:
>|
>| o Discussion of MUD design, including MUD programming, MUD building,
>|and game logic/structure.
>|
>|For many people, including me, this is the only reason to read
>|rec.games.mud. Let's not throw it back among the chaff of rec.games.mud.
>|
>|Curtis
>
>And I think we should add:
>
> o Discussion of serious mud issues, including social concerns and
>policy decisions, which would be free of flamage and irrelevant personal
>postings.
>
>Ugh. Now r.g.m.info seems to be a little crowded. This is also why (I hope!)
>we could create two seperate newsgroups to handle these issues.
How about rec.games.mud.announce and rec.games.mud.design? The former would
be moderated, the latter would start off free; we could moderate it later if
this became necessary.
Rec.games.mud.announce would encompass essentially what has been
proposed as rec.games.mud.info; new muds, mudlists, FAQs, bug announcements,
hatchings, and so forth.
Rec.games.mud.design would hopefully provide a forum somewhat
broader than the proposed rec.games.mud.programmer. It would contain
discussion on MUD server coding, MUD-language coding/building, MUD design,
and issues relating to what MUDs are or what they should be.
Rec.games.mud should remain as is.
curtis
"I tried living in the real world
Instead of a shell
But I was bored before I even began." - The Smiths
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
|I think we should add:
|
| o Discussion of MUD design, including MUD programming, MUD building,
|and game logic/structure.
|
|For many people, including me, this is the only reason to read
|rec.games.mud. Let's not throw it back among the chaff of rec.games.mud.
|
|Curtis
And I think we should addL
o Discussion of serious mud issues, including social concerns and
policy decisions, which would be free of flamage and irrelevant personal
postings.
Ugh. Now r.g.m.info seems to be a little crowded. This is also why (I hope!)
we could create two seperate newsgroups to handle these issues.
Bruce
--
| wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | "That's Bruce for ya, always jumping |
| sirb...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | on the bandwagon, even if it's |
| ster...@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu | running over him." -- Xeno |
| Bruce@Asylum/CaveMUCK/FurryMUCK | "I view muds as dying." -- Warrant |
Curtis Yarvin
In article <4gx...@rpi.edu> fl...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Patrick J Wetmore) writes:
|
|Purpose: To serve as a moderated group for postings of a purely informational
| nature. Examples:
|
| o muds --
| new muds, moving muds, dead muds
| o code announcements --
| code releases as well as requests for discussion; releases
| can include both posting of patches and simply where to get it
| o miscellaneous mud announcements --
| announcements about conventions, parties both on-line and
| off-line, hatchings, and in short any sort of misc announcement
| that might be interesting for more than one given mud
| o FAQ sheets --
| including definitions of muds, how to get started, where
| to find client and mud code, purpose of the groups, etc
| o lists --
| mud lists, mailing list lists, ftp site lists, bug report
| lists, etc
| o any other type of announcement, with follow-ups directed to
| rec.games.mud.
I think we should add:
Bryant Durrell
>rec.games.mud.mod sounds about exactly the same as rec.games.mud.info,
>except with a different name. It's not fatal to agree with Random, you
>know. It happens to everyone once in a while - go rec.games.mud.info.
(Gee, supporters...)
OK, as I see it, the main difference between r.g.m.mod and r.g.m.info
is in the nature of the charters. The info charter is inclusive; it
specifically includes informational posts only.
The mod charter, as I have posted in preliminary form, is exclusive.
It merely excludes personal attacks, complaints about a given MUD,
and a few other things. The basic idea behind this is discussion
without flamage.
As is probably obvious, the traffic I'd expect r.g.m.mod to get
would be similar to the traffic on r.g.m right now, with a much
higher s/n ratio.
As is also probably obvious, Matt Robinson's current proposal and
my idea are similar, with the exception that the two groups are
flipped (sorry if I'm wrong here, Matt).
My reasoning is simply that r.g.m is too much of a sacred cow to
be changed. Fine, so be it. However, I do believe there is a
desire for a moderated discussion group.
--
Cyberpixie dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"UUCP is an old protocol. Weeg does not support it and has no plans to do so."
-- Rex Pruess (rpr...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu)
matt robinson
->fl...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Patrick J Wetmore) writes:
->>To Bryant & his supporters:
->>rec.games.mud.mod sounds about exactly the same as rec.games.mud.info,
->>except with a different name. It's not fatal to agree with Random, you
->>know. It happens to everyone once in a while - go rec.games.mud.info.
->
->(Gee, supporters...)
->
->OK, as I see it, the main difference between r.g.m.mod and r.g.m.info
->is in the nature of the charters. The info charter is inclusive; it
->specifically includes informational posts only.
->
->The mod charter, as I have posted in preliminary form, is exclusive.
->It merely excludes personal attacks, complaints about a given MUD,
->and a few other things. The basic idea behind this is discussion
->without flamage.
->
->As is probably obvious, the traffic I'd expect r.g.m.mod to get
->would be similar to the traffic on r.g.m right now, with a much
->higher s/n ratio.
->
->As is also probably obvious, Matt Robinson's current proposal and
->my idea are similar, with the exception that the two groups are
->flipped (sorry if I'm wrong here, Matt).
->
->My reasoning is simply that r.g.m is too much of a sacred cow to
->be changed. Fine, so be it. However, I do believe there is a
->desire for a moderated discussion group.
->
->--
->Cyberpixie dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
Well, I think that r.g.m could act more as a moderated discussion AND
information group, than just r.g.m.info. It's just a name thing, and
I feel r.g.m is more generic to handle such a forum. Moderation on
discussion is a definite need. Off the wall flaming and overall
posts that have nothing to do with the discussions or information posted
have no reason to be in a moderated group.
But all of this is dependant on the moderator; my feelings are that
discussions that don't extend too far out of hand can be managed in
a moderated group like r.g.m. Any outlandish remarks can be forwarded
to r.g.m.d. and followed up there.
What about that kind of environment, all? r.g.m.mod is exactly what
I'm trying to do, except flip-flopped (as Bryant said). :) r.g.m.info
just seems too "hard-lined" for me.
--Matt
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt D. Robinson (Regret/Yakker) <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Systems Programming Group, UC Riverside <> "...if I only had a brain.."
{yakker,news,play,source}@ucrmath.ucr.edu <> The Scarecrow, the Wizard Of Oz
Scott Goehring
>o Discussion of MUD design, including MUD programming, MUD building,
> and game logic/structure.
>For many people, including me, this is the only reason to read
>rec.games.mud. Let's not throw it back among the chaff of
>rec.games.mud.
the problem with this is that it would not fit in with the rest of the
proposed group. i have seen enough people express an interest in a
programming group to make a proposal for such a group (in fact, you
should already have run into it). personally i don't see it as
necessary, but there seem to be a significant number of people who do.
--
Help stamp out vi in our lifetime!
Scott Goehring goeh...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
goeh...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
"Then go cast an astral spell on yourself, ok?"
Kenneth Arromdee
>Fortunately, the issue is not
>whether we want Hurin, but rather whether we want Patrick Wetmore. To
>speak candidly, I'd much rather have a moderator who mudded *so well*
>that he was able to fool people into thinking he was Hurin in real life
>(the sheer roleplaying skill! The technical grace!) than someone who,
>no offense, I've never even heard of until today. ...
I'd like to point something out here. Patrick is a choice for moderator
because of his experience. The reason playing Hurin doesn't disqualify him
is that he can cause lots of damage but can't _get_away_ with it.
But to reiterate some points I made before:
1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
2) By deciding to play Hurin in ways which interfere with other people's
enjoyment of the game, _Patrick_ has made a decision, which he can be
criticized for.
3) There's a difference between players and characters. Things done to
players, as opposed to characters, can't be justified with "it's a game, after
all".
4) There's a lot of hypocrisy about not tolerating Hurin-like behavior from
other people who also deliberately play characters as assholes.
Jiro/Mizue, EVIL! snivelling crossdresser
--
"When you whine like a stuck pig, or flame like a blowtorch, then
people get angry. If you want to ACCOMPLISH something, p'raps you should
learn some tact."
-- Random, on rec.games.mud
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Coyote
Is there any chance of a paintballing news group being set up? I, for one,
would like such a newsgroup, to keep track of new paintballing sites,
paintballing tournaments etc.
--
__ \ JANET : bsh...@uk.ac.cov.cck
/ ` ____ ____/--_ / INET : bsh031%cck.co...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
(__/ (_) (_/___(_) (__</_ \ FLESH : Chris Male
_________/ / STATUS: Single (And Proud Of It!!!)
Judy Anderson
In article <EXILE.91A...@pogo.gnu.ai.mit.edu> ex...@silver.lcs.mit.edu writes:
>In article <10...@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arro...@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
> But to reiterate some points I made before:
> 1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
> obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
>out of curiosity, does that mean that there is also no difference
>between acting female and being female, since femaleness is defined by
>one's actions?
I'm confused by this. I *am* female, but I don't think I *act*
female. I make no attempt to hide my gender in any electronic medium.
Such an experiment might be interesting.
I believe strongly in equality for men and women, and that gender
shouldn't *matter* except when it's really relevant (like sexual
orientation, having children, and that sort of thing---and relating to
mud, TinySex participation). But when there's a discussion of coding
style or how many hours there are between California and Australia, or
a group going through someone else's area solving their puzzles and
delighting in their creativity (or, indeed, critizing their errors,
let's be realistic), who cares whether I'm female? Why should I care
about the genders of the my fellow conversationalists?
In any interaction one can be obnoxious. "Hey, you asshole, everyone
knows Australia and California are 5 hours apart!" (Which is wrong,
due to daylight savings time skews---but it is in character for the
obnoxious person to be wrong as well.) "Geez, this guy can't program
his way out of a paper bag!" In what way can one "act female" though?
yduJ on LambdaMOO, CyberMOO, TinyTIM
yduJ (Judy Anderson) yd...@lucid.com 'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
Ryan Mathews
In article <`=$*Q$=@cck.cov.ac.uk>, bsh...@uk.ac.cov.cck (Coyote) writes:
|>
|> Is there any chance of a paintballing news group being set up? I, for one,
|> would like such a newsgroup, to keep track of new paintballing sites,
|> paintballing tournaments etc.
Such a group, alt.sport.paintball, already exists and gets about a
dozen or so messages a week.
Move the group to rec? Guess you'd have to ask the folks there...
---------- Ryan Mathews
--
Internet : mat...@cs.buffalo.edu
Bitnet : mathews@sunybcs
UUCP : {apple,cornell,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,talcott,ucbvax,uunet}!
cs.buffalo.edu!mathews
Kaine
(Heresiarch) commented:
> In article <10...@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arro...@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
> writes:
>
> But to reiterate some points I made before:
> 1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
> obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
>
> out of curiosity, does that mean that there is also no difference
> between acting female and being female, since femaleness is defined by
> one's actions?
Funny -- I thought it was biology... If a male transvestite *acts* female,
does that actually *make* him female? I guess some would argue that it makes
him less male ... I disagree. Jiro's point is a good one.
> --
> <SIG>_______________________________________________________________________
> all the time you know she's smiling, ex...@silver.lcs.mit.edu
> you'll be on your knees tomorrow -steely dan lbu...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> lau...@ikaros.harvard.edu </SIG>
By the way, ashne, I always have liked your .sig :) Great tune.
--Peter Kaine Tevonian
"Suzi want her all day sucker....Suzi wants her all day WHAT?" -- Extreme
Felix Ortony
>1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
>obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
Well, no. I mean, I can act obnoxious all day in muds, but if I *am*
obnoxious (as in, it's part of my psychological makeup or something,
as it clearly is with some people), then I'm probably a security
risk, not worth hiring, etc. There's a distinction between playing
a character on a MUD and being a person in real life that you're not
addressing. Fur probably doesn't speaky liky this all day, yoo know?
>2) By deciding to play Hurin in ways which interfere with other people's
>enjoyment of the game, _Patrick_ has made a decision, which he can be
>criticized for.
Right. Hurin-the-character, as I stated, is clearly not the right way
to go about moderating any kind of newsgroup (well, maybe alt.romance.chat).
That Pat (international internet conspiracy alert) knows the difference
between reality and gaming tells me more than 'his character sucks'. I
mean, would you disqualify Lee Iacocca (pbuh) from being CEO of General
Motors (or whatever) just because he once played a chaotic evil thief?
Nah. Pat and Mr. Iacocca can distinguish. That's the only important
thing.
>3) There's a difference between players and characters. Things done to
>players, as opposed to characters, can't be justified with "it's a game, after
>all".
True. Let's put a clause in the call for votes that emphasizes that if
Pat EVER beats on someone with a ball peen hammer, he's OUT of there.
>4) There's a lot of hypocrisy about not tolerating Hurin-like behavior from
>other people who also deliberately play characters as assholes.
Pat does Hurin well. It's humorous, sometimes even intellectual. Like
Roger RDC Carasso (pbuh) -- some people think he's a dolt, some people
like his style. Let's talk qualifications rather than characters people
have played, though. I'm taking your word as a human being, rather than
your word as a crossdressing anime wannabe cavemucker. Mr. Wetmore's
experience with LPmuds and TinyMuds from both a programmer's and a
player's perspective give him the right stuff to be a moderator.
>Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
> INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
Whatever you do, DON'T vote for Hurin -- the integrity of the tectonic
plate upon which we stand depends on it. Pat Wetmore's a far better choice.
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Kaine
(Felix Ortony) writes:
----
| arro...@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
|
| >1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
| >obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
|
| Well, no. I mean, I can act obnoxious all day in muds, but if I *am*
| obnoxious (as in, it's part of my psychological makeup or something,
| as it clearly is with some people), then I'm probably a security
| risk, not worth hiring, etc. There's a distinction between playing
| a character on a MUD and being a person in real life that you're not
| addressing. Fur probably doesn't speaky liky this all day, yoo know?
Heh heh! Haven't met fur in RL have you, Felix? Fact is, he DOES talk
like that...:) But your point is taken. :)
----
| >2) By deciding to play Hurin in ways which interfere with other people's
| >enjoyment of the game, _Patrick_ has made a decision, which he can be
| >criticized for.
|
| ... Pat and Mr. Iacocca can distinguish. That's the only important
| thing.
----
GOD, I hate agreeing with a wad like Felix, but I do...
----
| >4) There's a lot of hypocrisy about not tolerating Hurin-like behavior from
| >other people who also deliberately play characters as assholes.
|
| Pat does Hurin well. It's humorous, sometimes even intellectual. Like
---- ^^^^^^^^
I won't get into the debate of opinions of what is or isn't humor... Even I
know when I'm outnumbered. :)
----
| >Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
| > INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
|
| for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
| Rhodesia@Asylum
----
Okay, so it's obvious: Hurin the Wad is a good choice for moderator. Great.
Even I agree. Now lets vote and get this DONE with! Geez.
--Peter Kaine Tevonian
"Suzi wants an all day sucker...Suzi wants an all day WHAT?" -- Extreme
Joel Potter
I'm just reposting this post of mine to rec.games.mud 'cos I
forgot last time.
In article <73...@brunix.UUCP> c...@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>In article <11...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Sterling Woodcock) writes:
>>Ugh. Now r.g.m.info seems to be a little crowded. This is also why (I hope!)
>>we could create two seperate newsgroups to handle these issues.
Hmm.
A) On one side, it would be nice to have a serious
discussion group, free from flames.
B) On the other, .info is filling up.
I suspect now (in a poll vote I didn't mention discussion) that
i) Rec.games.mud is an inappropriate place to put important
postings (too noisy!), and
ii) rec.games.mud.info is an inappropriate forum for discussion.
>
>How about rec.games.mud.announce and rec.games.mud.design? The former would
>be moderated, the latter would start off free; we could moderate it later if
>this became necessary.
>
> Rec.games.mud.announce would encompass essentially what has been
>proposed as rec.games.mud.info; new muds, mudlists, FAQs, bug announcements,
>hatchings, and so forth.
So why not call it rec.games.mud.info ? It's less confusing.
> Rec.games.mud.design would hopefully provide a forum somewhat
>broader than the proposed rec.games.mud.programmer. It would contain
>discussion on MUD server programming, MUD-language coding/building, MUD
>design, and all issues relating to what MUDs are or what they should be.
One of the major points was that no posting in rec.games.mud goes
unflamed. It was thought that a moderated group for discussion (a WHAT?)
would be a good idea. I believe that a separate unmoderated group, like
rec.games.mud.design, would be a good idea.
WHY NOT CALL IT REC.GAMES.MUD.D ?
> Rec.games.mud would be left as is.
that's an important point.
>Anyone agree with this?
I certainly do!
--
"But that means... Oh Shit!"
- Reginald Robson, The Man in Black
Dark...@uk.ac.ed
Kenneth Arromdee
> 1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
> obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
>one's actions?
Well, no, being female is _not_ defined by one's actions. Anatomy has at
least a _little_ bit to do with it....
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Marcus J. Ranum
>>> obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
In an attempt to clarify this vital issue, I have researched and
developed the "OBNOXIOUSSTONE" benchmark [presented below]. This benchmark
is intended to provide a standard metric by which reprehensible behaviour
can be measured. Offending behaviours are valued in a ratio against a
primitive standard of obnoxiousness [historically, any rec.games.mud
posting by Marcus J. Ranum] which is baselined at ONE obnoxiousstone.
Some representative obnoxiousstone values:
------------------------------------------
OStones: What:
-------- -----
1 Baseline post.
5 average posting by Hurin
10 any posting that contains the word "lawyer" in a context
not referring to destruction of same
12 vaporMUD announcements
14 smug vaporMUD announcements
15 UnterMUD announcements
25 any follow-up with more than 2 levels of follow-ups
30 average flame in response to a PERNmud posting
45 average "so-and-so was TinyMEAN to me!" whimpers
60 average "my server dumped core, what do I do?" posting
90 average "TinyMUD is not allowed hear at my collidge" posting
The above values were measured on standard netnews machines,
running V1.0 of the obnoxious*stone benchmark.
mjr.
----
*obnoxious is a trademark of Marcus J. Ranum
Kenneth Arromdee
flames.)
In article <1991Apr30.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Felix Ortony) writes:
>>1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
>>obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
>Well, no. I mean, I can act obnoxious all day in muds, but if I *am*
>obnoxious ... then I'm probably a security risk, not worth hiring, etc.
>There's a distinction between playing a character on a MUD and being a
>person in real life that you're not addressing. ...
True. Just because someone is obnoxious in one situation doesn't mean they're
always obnoxious. That doesn't deny, though, that they _are_ being obnoxious
in that one situation.
>>3) There's a difference between players and characters. Things done to
>>players, as opposed to characters, can't be justified with "it's a game, after
>>all".
>True. Let's put a clause in the call for votes that emphasizes that if
>Pat EVER beats on someone with a ball peen hammer, he's OUT of there.
Patrick "plays Hurin" by doing actions that are the equivalent to, for instance,
cheating at cards. After all, it's only a game, and placing that extra card in
the deck is certainly physically possible, and you never agreed to any rules
that said you can't cheat, after all....
Things that are done to players are, for instance, killing newbies who ask for
help. (Which has spread beyond Hurin, and may not be the best example, but
is the first which comes to mind.) Now, only in the VR of the game is this
action a kill. To the player, being killed (or even being killed and
immediately penny-drained) is not murder. But that doesn't mean it's
_nothing_, either. It's disruptive to anyone without an autoreturn. It
confuses the newbies. And Patrick has Hurin do it _because_ he wants to annoy
and confuse the players. The same applies to spamming. Patrick spams in order
to piss off the players, not the characters. (Hurin doesn't spam. Hurin is a
character who exists only in his imagination and thus is totally incapable of
running a client, typing "/repeat 100 page newbie=spam spam spam" and then
laughing at the newbie's lack of autogags. _Patrick_ does that.)
>>4) There's a lot of hypocrisy about not tolerating Hurin-like behavior from
>>other people who also deliberately play characters as assholes.
>Pat does Hurin well. ...
So what? The arguments and flames against the Black Roses (the most obvious
example) leave no room for playing well or poorly. If people said "I don't
like the Black Roses because they play poorly, but I would stop complaining
if they kept on being assholes but did it with style", that would be
different. But they don't.
>.. though. I'm taking your word as a human being, rather than
>your word as a crossdressing anime wannabe cavemucker. ...
Right. The things I say come from me. If Jiro says them, it is me who
decided that Jiro says them. I cannot absolve myself of responsibility for
saying those things by claiming that it is only Jiro who says them. The
same applies to things that Jiro does--if Jiro were to get a wizard's
password and log into someone else's mud and trash it--it's _me_ who is to
blame. I can't say "it wasn't really me who did it." Neither can Patrick.
--
"If your spelling and grammer is so bad, you cannot get your meaning
across or cause ambiguities, then it has a write to be flamed."
-- Dirque, on rec.games.mud
Felix Ortony
> [ a charter, written by Jennifer "Moira" Smith -ed ]
It's good to see that, at last, there are some visual results happening
in between all of these naming discussions and flames of Mr. Robinson.
This charter seems, at least to me, to provide functionality which
rec.games.mud pretty clearly doesn't have at this point in time.
Relative newcomers to mudding in general (such as myself) need a group
which will provide a nice clear signal. If FAQ posts, lists of active
MUDs, hints, discussions of policy and strategy, coding discussions and
other seriously informative info were collected into one arena, mudding
in general would be greatly enhanced.
Some minor comments: Hurin would be an absolutely abysmal moderator.
I couldn't really imagine a worse choice. He'd be continually kicking
people around, sending contributors /etc/termcap, and ranting about
trilobite sympathizer conspiracies. Fortunately, the issue is not
whether we want Hurin, but rather whether we want Patrick Wetmore. To
speak candidly, I'd much rather have a moderator who mudded *so well*
that he was able to fool people into thinking he was Hurin in real life
(the sheer roleplaying skill! The technical grace!) than someone who,
no offense, I've never even heard of until today. There are more
Tiny* style muds than LPmuds; I submit that Patrick Wetmore has the
wider range of experience and knowledge.
I'm sure that when the Powers that Be read the discussion about the
suitability of Mr. Robinson's RFD that they will be flexible. Mr.
Robinson's idea is good, and a good start, but it's got nowhere near
the support or the integrity of the Wetmore/Smith plan. Mr. Tale's
definitely smart enough to realize that inflexibility on this kind
of issue could result in people issuing 'get-it-in-first' ridiculous
RFDs to stymy opposition.
>Patrick J. Wetmore
>fl...@rpi.edu
My choice for moderator.
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
ANIMAL
>
> Is there any chance of a paintballing news group being set up? I, for one,
> would like such a newsgroup, to keep track of new paintballing sites,
> paintballing tournaments etc.
Such a group already exists in the alt.* heirarchy: alt.sport.paintball. This
can be a problem if your site doesn't get the alt groups though.
--
John H. Reiher Jr.
Internet: John.H..Reiher@Happy.colorado.edu or JHRE...@happy.colorado.edu
Bitnet: JHRE...@COLOSPGS.BITNET
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Standard disclaimer, mainly to keep the University of | Meow! Meow! |
| Colorado's regents from having kittens over my remarks. | Purrrrrrrr! |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Ortony
>(Gasp. A serious response. Let's hope this can stay this way without
>flames.)
Agreed.
>Just because someone is obnoxious in one situation doesn't mean they're
>always obnoxious. That doesn't deny, though, that they _are_ being obnoxious
>in that one situation.
I think you and I are on the same wavelength here. There's no doubt in my
mind that in the situation of Pat playing Hurin on a MUD, he's being
obnoxious. Where I think we diverge is that having utilized his code,
and having talked to Pat about serious issues, and having seen his
credentials, I am convinced that Pat can separate reality (moderation)
from unreality (mudding), and that he, being a very smart person, can
do so with an absolute minimum of overlap.
>Patrick "plays Hurin" by doing actions that are the equivalent to ...
>cheating at cards. After all, it's only a game, and placing that extra card in
>the deck is certainly physically possible, and you never agreed to any rules
>that said you can't cheat, after all....
On the other hand, cheating at cards might adversely affect someone's
money supply, whereas typing 'kill Woodlock=100' does absolutely nothing
to anyone's wellbeing. There are 'unspoken rules' in cards and in real
life (i.e., one doesn't leap across the table and strangle one's roommate
just because he wouldn't leggo your eggo etc etc) that simply don't exist
in virtual reality. Your argument, without too much extension, can lead
us down the primrose path of believing that LPmudders tend towards being
psychotic killers (in that they're defined by their actions in the MUD).
I mean, I wish you could /gag and @toad and page people in real life,
but you can't. Remember, there's a Wizard out there who is NOT Pat Wetmore
who has allowed the KILL command in his Mud. You're playing on HIS turf,
in HIS game. If you don't like it, complain about Hurin to the wizard;
and if that fails, find a new MUD.
>Things that are done to players are, for instance, killing newbies who ask for
>help. [and other antisocial and somewhat unfriendly things, deleted -- ed]
> _Patrick_ does that.)
Yeah, these things are often pretty stupid. Moira and I are/have been
putting together some Frequently Asked Questions posts, one of which has
already been exposed to the glaring light of usenet, to ease newbie
transition. I myself would prefer if Pat wouldn't do that. However,
I don't have any illusions that Pat would spam contributors to rec.games.
mud.info with /etc/termcaps or hack onto their machines with root passwords
and delete their records or replace their shell environment variable with
/usr/games/yow. Out of Hurin, he's reasonable, intelligent, and sentient.
>>Pat does Hurin well. ...
>So what? The arguments and flames against the Black Roses (the most obvious
>example) leave no room for playing well or poorly. If people said "I don't
>like the Black Roses because they play poorly, but I would stop complaining
>if they kept on being assholes but did it with style", that would be
>different. But they don't.
They don't? I mean, I've never met the Black Roses. But I wouldn't
mind so much if there were such a group as long as they were cool about
it. I find that Hurin only really kills those people who I wouldn't
mind doing a couple of messy macro kills on myself. And he does it with
humor and style, at least these days. Maybe he's mellowed out since you
last came into contact with him? Either way, the point about him doing
Hurin well was aimed at the fact that he's competent as a mudder, which
in my eyes adds to his qualifications as a competent moderator.
>>.. though. I'm taking your word as a human being, rather than
>>your word as a crossdressing anime wannabe cavemucker. ...
>Right. The things I say come from me. If Jiro says them, it is me who
>decided that Jiro says them. I cannot absolve myself of responsibility for
>saying those things by claiming that it is only Jiro who says them. The
>same applies to things that Jiro does--if Jiro were to get a wizard's
>password and log into someone else's mud and trash it--it's _me_ who is to
>blame. I can't say "it wasn't really me who did it." Neither can Patrick.
I think the essential point that I want to get at here is that you're
attaching too-deep meanings to what Hurin does. Don't take this as a
flame. When I type 'kill bob=100', I do not mean that I want to go to
his house and bury a hatchet across his spinal cord. When I type '@toad
Xibo', I do not mean that I wish him to be a foul, green warty object.
When I'm busy tinysexing every single damn chup at once, I don't really
mean that I would particularly like to do the nasty with a bunch of
little furry creatures that probably look like vampire cartoon otters.
In Hurin's case, there's no real 'blaming' to be done, in my opinion.
You can fight back, talk to the wizard whose playground you're on,
or /gag him. He has as much a right to act like a repellent, malevolent
piece of cheesewhiz to people he deems unsentient as you have to act
like an (EVIL!) anime crossdresser, until God (the wizard) takes that
right away. And well he might.
>Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
> INTERNET: arro...@cs.jhu.edu)
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Bryant Durrell
>arro...@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>I think you and I are on the same wavelength here. There's no doubt in my
>mind that in the situation of Pat playing Hurin on a MUD, he's being
>obnoxious. Where I think we diverge is that having utilized his code,
>and having talked to Pat about serious issues, and having seen his
>credentials, I am convinced that Pat can separate reality (moderation)
>from unreality (mudding), and that he, being a very smart person, can
>do so with an absolute minimum of overlap.
<grin> Yup, it's the game vs. real life debate again. I'm going
to start with my basic statement, here.
First of all, regardless of whether or not people *should* treat
MUDs as part of their real life, some people do treat them thus.
Obviously, not everything said or done on the MUDs can be ignored
in real life. Examples include R'n'Mcon, me moving halfway across
the country, and so on.
Therefore, there is at least the possibility of affecting someone
emotionally in real life by your character's actions on the MUD.
Further, we must note that it is not necessary to even be talking
to someone to affect them with your MUD actions. If, for example,
someone crashes a database and as a result, 3000 lines of MUF code
that weren't backed up are lost, that's certainly going to upset
someone, and justly. Continuing with this hypothetical, work done
for the sake of play (writing code for fun objects) is no less
valuable than 'serious work.'
The argument can be made that nobody should be required to think
out every last consequence of their actions before taking them. I
agree. However, there are undeniably certain actions that have a
greater probability of causing injury than others. While they may
not always be harmful, this does not mean that one has free license
to take them without thinking about the results.
Finally, one person's failure to take precautions does not give all
others just cause to take advantage of his or her failings. Just
because one *can* read the .tinytalk of the guy one directory over
does not give one the right to do so.
>>Patrick "plays Hurin" by doing actions that are the equivalent to ...
>>cheating at cards. After all, it's only a game, and placing that extra card in
>>the deck is certainly physically possible, and you never agreed to any rules
>>that said you can't cheat, after all....
>
>On the other hand, cheating at cards might adversely affect someone's
>money supply, whereas typing 'kill Woodlock=100' does absolutely nothing
>to anyone's wellbeing. There are 'unspoken rules' in cards and in real
>life (i.e., one doesn't leap across the table and strangle one's roommate
>just because he wouldn't leggo your eggo etc etc) that simply don't exist
>in virtual reality.
This is only partially true, and is, I think, somewhat of a red
herring. While unspoken rules do not exist universally, that does
not mean that they do not exist in particular. Further, mere
ignorance of the unspoken rules of others does not, again, justify
the breaking of them. If my friends cheat at poker, and your
friends don't, you still have the right to be angry at me if I come
over to your poker game and cheat.
Also, this argument does not prove that unwritten rules should not
exist.
>Your argument, without too much extension, can lead
>us down the primrose path of believing that LPmudders tend towards being
>psychotic killers (in that they're defined by their actions in the MUD).
>I mean, I wish you could /gag and @toad and page people in real life,
>but you can't. Remember, there's a Wizard out there who is NOT Pat Wetmore
>who has allowed the KILL command in his Mud. You're playing on HIS turf,
>in HIS game. If you don't like it, complain about Hurin to the wizard;
>and if that fails, find a new MUD.
To those who treat MUDs as a means of communication -- and a huge
percentage of people do -- this is a poor analogy. One can't claim
that the telephone system isn't real life just because in real life
one can't dial 911.
The distinction between MUDs and real life only holds if MUDs are
always treated as a game. This is, obviously, not the case. The
various things you can do on a MUD are enhancements to real life
communication, as is the MUD itself.
>He has as much a right to act like a repellent, malevolent
>piece of cheesewhiz to people he deems unsentient as you have to act
>like an (EVIL!) anime crossdresser, until God (the wizard) takes that
>right away. And well he might.
Mmm. As long as it's a game, again. Another example: it's
not considered OK for a male player to harass a female player.
We've all seen that debate carried out here, I think. So, then,
why is it OK when it isn't a case of sexual harassment?
By 'all right,' I simply mean that when I tell a sexual harasser
to go away and bug off, I get positive responses from the people
who are there. This isn't always the case with non-sexual
harassment.
[Note: this has moved away from being about anyone in particular,
so reponses to this based on 'so and so doesn't do that' will be
happily ignored.]
Heresiarch
But to reiterate some points I made before:
1) There's no difference between acting obnoxious and actually _being_
obnoxious, since obnoxiousness is defined by one's actions.
out of curiosity, does that mean that there is also no difference
between acting female and being female, since femaleness is defined by
one's actions?
Tygryss/littlefox
>The same applies to things that Jiro does--if Jiro were to get a wizard's
>password and log into someone else's mud and trash it--it's _me_ who is to
>blame. I can't say "it wasn't really me who did it." Neither can Patrick.
Ummm... Actually, we really didn't want this to air on rec.games.mud.
After all, we had everything fixed up the same night by changing ports,
@recycling then @pcreating the four @toaded chars, @newpasswording all
the wizards and builders, and @chowning all the items back. All in all,
the breakin was more of an irritation than a big problem. Even if I did
have to spend 2 hours on the phone to michigan at 2 in the morning.
- Foxen
(who should be remembered by Patrick
rather well, as the wizard stolen
to do the @toadings.)
--
Foxen/Tygryss/Revar/Fiera/littlefox/OreoDragon/Catrona/C'mell/Menolly/Varin/Ab/
Karen/Ravellia/Olivia/Tyriana/Sivianath/Beauty/Rocky/Diver/cubling/SunSlayer/
Silvia/./Whelan/Lynxetta/Tygrynx/Tygling/Tygryn/Purree/Sooty/J'ron/SilverDragon
and about 8 or 10 more. tyg...@through.cs.caltech.edu Support tCotHFoB!
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>arro...@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>>The same applies to things that Jiro does--if Jiro were to get a wizard's
>>password and log into someone else's mud and trash it--it's _me_ who is to
>>blame. I can't say "it wasn't really me who did it." Neither can Patrick.
>Ummm... Actually, we really didn't want this to air on rec.games.mud.
Like so many of the happenings on Crossroads. I am curious as to *why* you
didn't want to air this... wouldn't it be nice for other mud administrators
to know about what this person did and might do to their system as well? Or
were you just afraid of getting flamed for "whining" about it? Or was there
something about the incident you were trying to hide? I'm not trying to make
accusations of conspiracies here; I'm just curious. I know I tried to keep
several incidents hushed on Classic, too, but usually because they were minor
personal disputes which were more easily resolved one-on-one than through the
resulting flamewars and jumping to conclusions a rec.games.mud discussion
might have caused.
>After all, we had everything fixed up the same night by changing ports,
>@recycling then @pcreating the four @toaded chars, @newpasswording all
>the wizards and builders, and @chowning all the items back. All in all,
>the breakin was more of an irritation than a big problem. Even if I did
>have to spend 2 hours on the phone to michigan at 2 in the morning.
What's this? @recycling the toads? What happened to @untoad? Perhaps you
don't have that feature... you might want to look into it. It's easy to code,
and saves a lot of hassle if you want to retain the properties (and object #)
that were on the original player object.
Also... why @newpassword *all* of the wizards and builders? Was security to
that portion of the database compromised? If so, shouldn't @newpassword have
been used for all of the characters? Even though a spammer couldn't easily as
do as much damage through a regular character, I'd still like to think the
player's own stuff was secure. Now that I think about it s'more tho, I guess
there really aren't many (if any?) non-wizards or non-builders on Crossroads
at the moment.
Anyway, the point remains that the person who did this did so with clear intent
to do at least as much (if not more) hassle that he did. Some would argue
that it was deserved, after leaving open such a security risk. I might even
agree. But that doesn't make what he did right, or excusable because it was
"just a game" and not real life.
Bruce
--
| wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | "That's Bruce for ya, always jumping |
| sirb...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | on the bandwagon, even if it's |
| ster...@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu | running over him." -- Xeno |
| Bruce@Asylum/CaveMUCK/FurryMUCK | "I view muds as dying." -- Firefoot |
Tygryss/littlefox
>>Ummm... Actually, we really didn't want this to air on rec.games.mud.
>
>Like so many of the happenings on Crossroads. I am curious as to *why* you
>didn't want to air this... wouldn't it be nice for other mud administrators
>to know about what this person did and might do to their system as well? Or
>were you just afraid of getting flamed for "whining" about it? Or was there
>something about the incident you were trying to hide?
Mostly because we didn't think it would do any good to start a flame-war
as none of us particularly like them. Also, Hurin would prolly enjoy the
notoriety. There wasn't anything to hide in the matter, except perhaps
the new port number as we fixed the damage.
>What's this? @recycling the toads? What happened to @untoad? Perhaps you
>don't have that feature... you might want to look into it. It's easy to code,
>and saves a lot of hassle if you want to retain the properties (and object #)
>that were on the original player object.
No, we haven't added @untoad to MUCK code yet. Luckily we don't store
many of the properties specific to a player *on* the player, but on a
seperate object. As for dbref#, when you @rec the toad, then @pcreate,
the new player takes the toad's dbref#.
>Also... why @newpassword *all* of the wizards and builders? Was security to
>that portion of the database compromised? If so, shouldn't @newpassword have
>been used for all of the characters?
All of the players were @newpassworded. My word choice was bad, perhaps, as
I was saying 'builders' to include all the non-wiz characters. When the
breakin occurred, the wiz character broken into was used to @newpassword
about 8 or 10 other players, including about 4 or so wizards. We didn't
know at the time just who all had safe passwords, and who didn't.
>Anyway, the point remains that the person who did this did so with clear intent
>to do at least as much (if not more) hassle that he did. Some would argue
>that it was deserved, after leaving open such a security risk.
What security risk is that? I don't see to which you refer.
- Foxen/Tygryss/littlefox/Fiera/Gahladahsk_Fadja
Felix Ortony
><grin> Yup, it's the game vs. real life debate again. I'm going
>to start with my basic statement, here.
jayzus forgive me for I have sinned
>First of all, regardless of whether or not people *should* treat
>MUDs as part of their real life, some people do treat them thus.
>Obviously, not everything said or done on the MUDs can be ignored
>in real life. Examples include R'n'Mcon, me moving halfway across
>the country, and so on.
alright, I was a bit tired yesterday (finals week) and I misspoke a bit.
Let me try to clarify what you've pointed out as a sorry excuse for me
saying something.
There are two categories of unpleasant people on MUDs -- those who are
surface-unpleasant, and those who are meta-unpleasant. Surface-unpleasant
people include Hurin, Woodlock, and the like: people who discriminate
against stupidity but are open and direct about it. Meta-unpleasant
people are those kind of people who take advantage of others' innocence
or sensitivity (the famous tinysex logs here come into play) to actually
try to hurt the player behind the keyset. When Hurin hammers someone
to death in a MUD, he's being honest about it. He thinks the person
is playing a silly, stupid or useless character. To expand away from
the Hurin issue, these surface-unpleasant people are generally harmless
because they don't maliciously attack the person behind the keyset.
Those people who get hurt when their character gets hurt are, honestly
speaking, probably taking it too seriously.
I personally agree that MUDs are not games-only. The interaction with live
human beings on a social level changes all that. It's important, though,
to distinguish between people that are assholes through-and-through and
people who only play them on TV.
>--
>Cyberpixie dur...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"UUCP is an old protocol. Weeg does not support it and has no plans to do so."
> -- Rex Pruess (rpr...@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu)
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Bryant Durrell
>There are two categories of unpleasant people on MUDs -- those who are
>surface-unpleasant, and those who are meta-unpleasant. Surface-unpleasant
>people include Hurin, Woodlock, and the like: people who discriminate
>against stupidity but are open and direct about it. Meta-unpleasant
>people are those kind of people who take advantage of others' innocence
>or sensitivity (the famous tinysex logs here come into play) to actually
>try to hurt the player behind the keyset. When Hurin hammers someone
>to death in a MUD, he's being honest about it. He thinks the person
>is playing a silly, stupid or useless character. To expand away from
>the Hurin issue, these surface-unpleasant people are generally harmless
>because they don't maliciously attack the person behind the keyset.
>Those people who get hurt when their character gets hurt are, honestly
>speaking, probably taking it too seriously.
Cool. I think that's a good distinction.
Here we come to the important bit, though. (oh, damn, this is
getting back to should Pat Wetmore moderate...o well.)
Delibrately spamming a MUD is not so much injuring a character, but
destroying or trying to destroy someone's hard work. No matter what
you think of the quality of that work, I submit that destroying it
does not fall under surface-unpleasant.
Now, a persona spammed a MUD, not a person. However, I think we can
probably hold the person behind the persona responsible for any damage
the persona does. Otherwise, there's no accountability whatsoever.
Baba Rum Dudu
>attaching too-deep meanings to what Hurin does. Don't take this as a
If, as is true, I only have my interaction with Hurin, and no interaction
with P.Wetmore, it is entirely reasonable to allow my knowledge of his
character to color my decision.
Pat may well be a reasonable guy. I don't know.
I do know that he posted that my postings wouldn't make it into a moderated
group, moderated by him.
Maybe he signed it Hurin, I can't remember. But P.Wetmore posted it.
>or /gag him. He has as much a right to act like a repellent, malevolent
>piece of cheesewhiz to people he deems unsentient as you have to act
>like an (EVIL!) anime crossdresser, until God (the wizard) takes that
>right away. And well he might.
Indeed. Let him play on the MUDs all he wants. I have no problem with that.
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
or ba...@opus.tymnet.com
Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
Copyright notice: If you're going to copy it, copy it right.
Felix Ortony
>In article <1991May1.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> (Felix Ortony) writes:
>>I think the essential point that I want to get at here is that you're
>>attaching too-deep meanings to what Hurin does. Don't take this as a
>Pat may well be a reasonable guy. I don't know.
>I do know that he posted that my postings wouldn't make it into a moderated
>group, moderated by him.
>Maybe he signed it Hurin, I can't remember. But P.Wetmore posted it.
Well, to look at the essential facts of the matter, nothing you've posted
that I've read has had much of any value (except perhaps for this post,
which actually contained something worth following up). rec.games.mud.info
would not be a newsgroup for 'your post was not entertaining', Mr.
Hentrich. I'm not flaming you, just pointing it out.
>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!baba
> or ba...@opus.tymnet.com
>Claimer: These are only opinions since everything I know is wrong.
>Copyright notice: If you're going to copy it, copy it right.
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Heresiarch
ok, so, bryant, is your point that people who spam muds ought to be
held accountable (though how you intend to do this is beyond me.
planning to drive to massachusetts to spank mr. wetmore cause he
crashed crossroads?) or do you believe that mr. wetmore isn't a fit
moderator? just what are you getting at?
enquiring minds wouldn't give a fuck except i'm bored.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>saying something.
Ok...
>There are two categories of unpleasant people on MUDs -- those who are
>surface-unpleasant, and those who are meta-unpleasant. Surface-unpleasant
>people include Hurin, Woodlock, and the like: people who discriminate
>against stupidity but are open and direct about it.
Ummm... I'm not *quite* sure what you mean here. They are open and direct
about being unpleasant, or they are open and direct about discriminating
against stupidity?
>Meta-unpleasant people are those kind of people who take advantage of others'
>innocence or sensitivity (the famous tinysex logs here come into play) to
>actually try to hurt the player behind the keyset. When Hurin hammers
>someone to death in a MUD, he's being honest about it. He thinks the person
>is playing a silly, stupid or useless character. To expand away from
>the Hurin issue, these surface-unpleasant people are generally harmless
>because they don't maliciously attack the person behind the keyset.
If I log onto Asylum, then, and decided your character is silly, stupid, or
useless, I can do whatever I want to you? Page-bomb, kill fest, sexual
harassment, and all that?
After all, I don't mean to hurt you maliciously... it's just a game. Stop
taking it so seriously.
Now, I agree with you that there is a distinction. Someone who does wrong
but not with malicious intent is not, IMHO, as bad as someone who is genuinely
attempting to hurt someone. However, in such cases, the person has still
done wrong and usually is expected to give some sort of renumeration... at
least, an apology. So while I think you're correct is saying that Hurin and
other surface-unpleasant people are not as bad as those who are intentionally
malicious (assuming these people have never been intentionally malicious,
something which I don't think is always true in their exploits), their actions
are still not completely excused, especially in the absence of apologies or
attempts to curb such behavoir.
Some might argue that a cracker breaking into your account and renaming your
files and moving them around and the like isn't really doing anything wrong.
After all, he wasn't really trying to hurt you, no files were removed; he
was just having some fun, c'mon, stop taking it so seriously.
>Those people who get hurt when their character gets hurt are, honestly
>speaking, probably taking it too seriously.
I'll assume you're talking only in the surface-unpleasant case here. And
sometimes, you're right, they are taking it too seriously. But other times
they take it seriously because it *is* serious... to them, at least. And
sometimes we need to remember the Golden Rule... put *yourself* in the place
of that person on the receiving end of a surface-unpleasant person, and see
how you like it.
Allow me to quote anonymously part of a relpy someone sent me in an email
discussion about a similar issue. I don't entirely agree with the parallel
that is drawn here, but it's worth thinking about, and is the opinion of
a mostly objective observer. Here, replace "chaos-crowd" with "surface-
unpleasant people" if you don't like the stereotype:
Your comment on the chaos-crowd not minding being bullies, because it's
"just a game, not real" and the Nazis classing Jews as not human---some
very similar thoughts have crossed my own mind. In fact, this is a thing
that folks have observed has enabled serial killers like Ted Bundy to
operate with not a shred of remorse (except, of course, for getting caught
and punished). They simply classify what they do as a game, or their
victims as not really human, or somehow deserving of what they get. John
Gacy, another serial killer, told interviewers that his victims deserved
it because "they were just wimpy little faggots who pleaded and cried" and
said it was all "just a game" but these guys just couldn't take it. (His
games involved torturing and garrotting his victims.) What worries me is
that I've seen statements much like Gacy's manifested by the chaos-crowd.
And *that* worries me.
>I personally agree that MUDs are not games-only. The interaction with live
>human beings on a social level changes all that. It's important, though,
>to distinguish between people that are assholes through-and-through and
>people who only play them on TV.
Keep in mind that on TV, *everyone* is playing a character. In muds, this
isn't entirely the case. It's sorta like someone coming onto a talk show
and acting like a real jerk... sure, maybe he's just pretending, but for the
people in the audience and those others on the panel, it's real. Anyone
remember Morton Downey, Jr.? I'm sure he was an okay guy really, but he
acted like a real ass many times on his talk show, and while I probably
wouldn't hold that against him, I'd have reservations on trusting his
judgement to be fair and unbiased on certain issues.
Jim Miller
>
>><grin> Yup, it's the game vs. real life debate again. I'm going
>>to start with my basic statement, here.
>There are two categories of unpleasant people on MUDs -- those who are
>surface-unpleasant, and those who are meta-unpleasant. Surface-unpleasant
>people include Hurin, Woodlock, and the like: people who discriminate
>against stupidity but are open and direct about it. Meta-unpleasant
>people are those kind of people who take advantage of others' innocence
>or sensitivity (the famous tinysex logs here come into play) to actually
>try to hurt the player behind the keyset. When Hurin hammers someone
>to death in a MUD, he's being honest about it. He thinks the person
>is playing a silly, stupid or useless character. To expand away from
>the Hurin issue, these surface-unpleasant people are generally harmless
>because they don't maliciously attack the person behind the keyset.
>Those people who get hurt when their character gets hurt are, honestly
>speaking, probably taking it too seriously.
>
>I personally agree that MUDs are not games-only. The interaction with live
>human beings on a social level changes all that. It's important, though,
>to distinguish between people that are assholes through-and-through and
>people who only play them on TV.
So let's see. It is all right to "discriminate against stupidity", which
seems to necessitate, from numerous reports in this group going a long way
back in P. Wetmore's case, antagonizing a player with kills and screen-filling
macros until they are frustrated enough to leave or post about it, as long as
one is "open and direct about it".
Well, I have a few problems with that, Felix. I've learned that people who
are in the business of being judge, jury, and executioner are more than
just annoying, they're quite often bigots, incapable of placing themselves
in the other person's shoes. Or else, they hold the feelings of another
person so lightly, can make an object out of the person and view him as a toy,
so that nothing they do to this person can cause any real harm.
People do not, for the most part, disassociate themselves from their characters
while on a mud. Anyone who's played very long knows this, and P. Wetmore
knows this. We're not roleplayers, we're people looking for socialization,
and we can be hurt exactly as we can be hurt by the actions
of those physically around us. There's no "should be"s about it, that's
the way it is. So when a person who takes advantage of this for his personal
entertainment, as is my opinion of P. Wetmore, is offered up and praised
for his programming ability, and his mudding experience, for a position of
responsibility dealing with people, one which has the great potential of
causing hurt feelings (posts from other moderators confirm this), I have
to disagree and point out more relevant things.
If we could excuse P. Wetmore for his actions in the relatively isolated
domain of a mud, we couldn't do the same for his actions on the network.
He's adopted the same, it's-a-big-game attitude about Usenet, continuing
the baiting and antagonizing here. Not so much lately, but then he's
running for office now.
-auzzie
John Random Bizarre
->Allow me to quote anonymously part of a relpy someone sent me in an email
->discussion about a similar issue. I don't entirely agree with the parallel
->that is drawn here, but it's worth thinking about, and is the opinion of
->a mostly objective observer. Here, replace "chaos-crowd" with "surface-
->unpleasant people" if you don't like the stereotype:
Obviously, I dislike the stereotype; I dislike any stereotypes. Here is not
the place for me to complain about it, however; perhaps I'll log into
FurryMuck and make a few sweeping generalizations.
-> Your comment on the chaos-crowd not minding being bullies, because it's
-> "just a game, not real" and the Nazis classing Jews as not human---some
-> very similar thoughts have crossed my own mind.
Never mind. As we all know, the best rule of thumb is: on Usenet, when Nazis
come into the conversation, it's over.
So much for that thread.
-Random
( chaos-crowd, indeed )
--
---------------------"Comedy. Sudden, violent, comedy!"---------------------
Random J Nightfall//ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu//No disclaimer, just a clue:
This was by a techno-christian-scottish-barbarian-libertarian-historian-guru.
"The difference between like and love is just that between spit and swallow."
House BOOYYYYD
I'm paraphrasing, auzzie, I know you will correct me if I am wrong) of
'some people don't know how to separate MUDs from RL.' I'm not going to
make the statement that this means they are clueless or have no social
life, I don't want to get into a flame war about that, nor do I think
it's completely true. HOWEVER! There ARE people who keep their MUD
lives separate from their Real Lives. My girlfriend would disagree, but
I do. I think Random does, Moira does, and particularly, Hurin does.
Other people, I have no wish to name names, nor can I particularly think
of any at the moment, don't separate this, and this has come to cause
problems for them and people they know. (the people involved know who
they are, I don't know names in the situation). Again, I don't wish
to make value judgements about this type of person (although it sounds
like I am)
Anyway, I would say that Hurin is NOT Patrick Wetmore. Patrick Wetmore
PLAYS Hurin on MUDs, and has FUN at it (isn't that the idea, to have
Fun(tm)?) but he knows that r.g.m. is not MUD life, and will not
arbitrarily deny a post that is worthwhile to an issue.
Well, enough of that.
Anyone for a drink? come visit, I got floor space.
Hobbes/EbbTide/gregory/etc...
--
hob...@hpb.cis.pitt.edu | "I only kill to know I'm alive." - Ministry
wbf...@unix.cis.pitt.edu | Are you classified for this information?
Felix Ortony
>In article <1991May2.2...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> fortony@uxh (Felix Ortony):
>>There are two categories of unpleasant people on MUDs (et cetera - ed) ...
>So let's see. It is all right to "discriminate against stupidity", which
>seems to necessitate, from numerous reports in this group going a long way
>back in P. Wetmore's case, antagonizing a player with kills and screen-filling
>macros until they are frustrated enough to leave or post about it, as long as
>one is "open and direct about it".
No, that's not what I said. I did say that there's a difference between
playing a game on a MUD and performing a real life responsible function
like moderating a group in front of thousands, though. Kills are no problem
in my book -- you don't have to go back to where the killer is.
>Well, I have a few problems with that, Felix. I've learned that people who
>are in the business of being judge, jury, and executioner are more than
>just annoying, they're quite often bigots, incapable of placing themselves
>in the other person's shoes. Or else, they hold the feelings of another
>person so lightly, can make an object out of the person and view him as a toy,
>so that nothing they do to this person can cause any real harm.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. typing 'kill woof=100' is not being, however,
judge, jury and executioner, nor is it Nazi torture or serial killing.
>People do not, for the most part, disassociate themselves from their characters
>while on a mud. Anyone who's played very long knows this, and P. Wetmore
>knows this. We're not roleplayers, we're people looking for socialization,
>and we can be hurt exactly as we can be hurt by the actions
>of those physically around us. There's no "should be"s about it, that's
>the way it is. ... (some text deleted -ed)
I don't quite understand this 'we'. I'm a roleplayer -- right now I'm
roleplaying a small african country which was renamed following a coup.
Hurin's clearly a roleplayer; the entire Hellfire Club (nee Random Gang :))
is roleplaying; chupchups pretends to be a gaggle of (now he tells me
non-furry) fanged otterlike creatures...I could go on and on (but I won't).
I'm looking for socialization, fine, but, no offense, I don't want to be
included in your 'we', and I've met many mudders who feel the same way.
Also, I can't be hurt as I could be hurt by the guy I played racquetball
with yesterday. A bunch of ASCII packets don't have nearly the same
sting as a little rubber ball going 130 miles per hour. Maybe your
imagination is better than mine?
>-auzzie
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Felix Ortony
>> (for...@uxh.cso.uiuc [me] scrawls:)
>>is playing a silly, stupid or useless character. To expand away from
>>the Hurin issue, these surface-unpleasant people are generally harmless
>>because they don't maliciously attack the person behind the keyset.
>If I log onto Asylum, then, and decided your character is silly, stupid, or
>useless, I can do whatever I want to you? Page-bomb, kill fest, sexual
>harassment, and all that?
>After all, I don't mean to hurt you maliciously... it's just a game. Stop
>taking it so seriously.
I agree that there's a fuzzy line between being a surface-unpleasant
roleplayer and a meta-unpleasant moron. Being as I am a relatively new
player (what, Moira -- 2? 3 months?), the only knowledge I have of Hurin
is big, violent kill-macros. If he attempted to cripple a mud, then he
did step over that line. This sets up someone for writing a long post
about just what sort of mud behavior is acceptable, so let me try and
formulate a grammar to make the task easier (and .sig compatible).
WAYS OF DEALING WITH SOMEONE YOU CANNOT STAND
P pagebomb K killfest
S sex harassment I internet post
L dupe into Tinysex + log M call person a 'moron'
X ignore W whine to wizard
R hack root password F steal girl/boyfriend
A fireaxe to console E email
OPERATORS MODE DESCRIPTION
+ unary following symbol is approved of
- unary following symbol is frowned upon
= unary who cares about the following symbol
/ binary I often choose between these
hope this helps.
>Bruce
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum (-S+X+AL/K+K=I+M=F+E-W-P)
John Random Bizarre
->Or was Hussein a hero and I just didnt note that?
BZZZT. Perspective check, please.
-Random
( Hurin, Hussein ... hmmm, similar names )
--
---------------------"Comedy. Sudden, violent, comedy!"---------------------
Random J Nightfall//ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu//No disclaimer, just a clue:
This was by a techno-christian-scottish-barbarian-libertarian-historian-guru.
"I only fuck player characters." -- T.Rev, in an amazing but forgotten story.
John Random Bizarre
->WAYS OF DEALING WITH SOMEONE YOU CANNOT STAND
->P pagebomb K killfest
->S sex harassment I internet post
->L dupe into Tinysex + log M call person a 'moron'
->X ignore W whine to wizard
->R hack root password F steal girl/boyfriend
->A fireaxe to console E email
->OPERATORS MODE DESCRIPTION
->+ unary following symbol is approved of
->- unary following symbol is frowned upon
->= unary who cares about the following symbol
->/ binary I often choose between these
->hope this helps.
Now THIS is useful. Time for a new FAQ sheet.
->Rhodesia@Asylum (-S+X+AL/K+K=I+M=F+E-W-P)
-Random
( -P-S=L+X/M-R-A=K=I-W+F=E )
Laura
Agreed, Garrett, a moderator SHOULD be a person that has the capacity to
respect others and in turn, be respected. Someone who is continually
fostering fear or chaos wouldnt seem a very stable person, in my
estimation. If someone spams a db, that kinda shows a lack of scruples.
And most societies deem terrorism not good, to put it lightly.
Or was Hussein a hero and I just didnt note that?
Hopefully any person chosen for the position would be able to
take it seriously and honourably. If you think the topic doesnt dictate
or merit such a person, then why even create a group at all? Dont waste the
bandwidth.
-- Laura
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We care a lot about the little things, the bigger things we top
We care a lot about you people, yeah, you bet we care a lot
And it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it" -- Faith No More
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>Never mind. As we all know, the best rule of thumb is: on Usenet, when Nazis
>come into the conversation, it's over.
>
>So much for that thread.
And as we also all know: on rec.games.mud, when Random says a conversation is
over, it's over.
So much for that thread, indeed.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>Also, I can't be hurt as I could be hurt by the guy I played racquetball
>with yesterday. A bunch of ASCII packets don't have nearly the same
>sting as a little rubber ball going 130 miles per hour. Maybe your
>imagination is better than mine?
I believe auzzie was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain, caused by
another person's actions. As well as social and mental damage, liable,
slander, misrepresentation, fraud, etc. And I think almost anyone who read
that article understood that.
If you truly believe the only way you can hurt someone else is physically,
then I have some prime real estate in Florida I'd like to sell you...
Felix Ortony
>I believe auzzie was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain, caused by
>another person's actions. As well as social and mental damage, liable,
>slander, misrepresentation, fraud, etc. And I think almost anyone who read
>that article understood that.
Well, libel and slander have explicit meanings in the legal system which
can't be duplicated on a MUD, misrepresentation and fraud are what virtual
reality is all about, and mental damage isn't likely to result from a few
green dots being displayed (though VDT tests *have* produced startling
new finds). Cutting away all of the slack here, all that's left is social
damage. I contend that if someone's social life can be irreparably ruined
by anything I do or say on a MUD, then that person should, in all honesty,
hang up the keyset and go to an AA meeting.
>If you truly believe the only way you can hurt someone else is physically,
>then I have some prime real estate in Florida I'd like to sell you...
Okay. If you truly believe that someone can sustain lasting emotional damage
from the typed-in words of someone they've in all likelihood never met and
who can be avoided by the press of a key, then you're believing something
which should be wrong. That someone, if they exist, needs help which
mudders, mudding, and rec.games.mud cannot provide.
This sounds like I'm a heartless, cold piece of pond scum who does the same
things Hurin-the-character does in muds. I'm not. I've been bothered by
things people've done to my character (yeah, I've been toaded, and I've
had private conversations splattered throughout a mud with a wizard's shout),
and I personally feel that people who get off on such things are sick. I'm
not bringing legal terms into the situation at a whim, though, Bruce, and
I recognize that, in some senses, it is 'just a game.'
After all, if you go to a football team tryout and get knocked on your
rear end, who's to blame?
>Bruce
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Lydia Leong
>wood...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Sterling Woodcock) writes:
>
>>I believe auzzie was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain, caused by
>>another person's actions. As well as social and mental damage, liable,
>>slander, misrepresentation, fraud, etc. And I think almost anyone who read
>>that article understood that.
>
>>then I have some prime real estate in Florida I'd like to sell you...
>
>Okay. If you truly believe that someone can sustain lasting emotional damage
>from the typed-in words of someone they've in all likelihood never met and
>who can be avoided by the press of a key, then you're believing something
>which should be wrong. That someone, if they exist, needs help which
>mudders, mudding, and rec.games.mud cannot provide.
>
>
>for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
>Rhodesia@Asylum
Why shouldn't someone be able to sustain lasting emotional damage from
the typed-in words of someone they've never met? It's not really any
different from talking to someone on the telephone; just as you can
/gag someone, you can always hang up the phone. But one can be hurt by
talking to an obnoxious person on the phone; the same extends to muds.
Most of the friendships that I've seen on muds seem very real. Everyone
is a character, but there has to be a person behind the keyboard. Anything
that someone says can hurt, because there is a person behind the keyboard
who is typing the words. Sure, if you decide that you don't want to hear
it, you can /gag - but the damage has been done.
Why are people bothered by obscene callers? One can always hang up the
phone - but lots of people are shaken and disturbed by obscene calls.
By the time one cuts off the conversation, it's too late - the damage
has already been done.
Bottom line: always remember, that, behind the character, there is
a person who cares about what you are saying to them.
[ Amberyl / Hopscotch ]
--
/~\______________________________________________________________________/~\
|n| Lydia Leong | If there is anyone here that I have not |n|
|~| l...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu _| offended, I deeply apologize. -- Brahms |~|
|_|_________________________|#|__________________________________________|_|
Felix Ortony
>Why shouldn't someone be able to sustain lasting emotional damage from
>the typed-in words of someone they've never met? It's not really any
>different from talking to someone on the telephone; just as you can
>/gag someone, you can always hang up the phone. But one can be hurt by
>talking to an obnoxious person on the phone; the same extends to muds.
There are two things going on here. First of all, the interaction with
someone on the phone is very different than the interaction on muds. If
someone has your phone number, they have something on you, they know
something about you, and they can intrude on you whenever they want. Your
privacy is violated. On a MUD, you are just as anonymous as everyone
else around you. You know nothing about them, and they know nothing about
you. The chilly feeling of being evil-phone-called stems from the fact
that it's all one way, that you're at the person's mercy.
The other thing that's going on is that no obscene phone call is going
to cause me lasting emotional damage. Even knowing that my privacy has
been violated. I'm going to be pissed off, and I'm going to follow
routes to prevent future occurences, such as answering-machine screening
(gag files) or line traces (wizards) if it gets especially bad, but I'm
not going to check into a support group or anything. To some extent,
one has to deal with things or become societally dysfunctional.
>Bottom line: always remember, that, behind the character, there is
>a person who cares about what you are saying to them.
This is a good piece of advice, findable in my and Moira's FAQ sheet that
will occasionally be posted to this newsgroup. With one caveat: be prepared
for the worst. There are immature people out there who get their kicks
being morons. First, drag a net over the water to weed out the fools.
>[ Amberyl / Hopscotch ]
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
obMUD: what's the funniest odrop anyone's seen?
Felix Ortony
>But although you do "deal" with it, the obscence caller was still wrong for
>doing it, and if serious damage was done to you, you have every right to seek
>restitution and justice against the person.
You didn't read the post. I don't "deal" with obscene phonecallers, I
try to make sure it doesn't happen again through various means. The
obscene phone call analogy is not applicable to this instance.
>Now, perhaps you don't agree with this. But it is the LAW at the moment, and
>probably applies on muds, too.
No, I don't agree, because it's not the LAW at the moment on MUDs.
>Funny how the same side is saying two things: It's ok for us to do anything
>to you on muds, but if you say things about *us* on muds, we'll call a lawyer.
Uh oh -- with this statement, have you lumped me in with a Gang? What
"side" am I on?
>>First, drag a net over the water to weed out the fools.
> ^^^^^
>Anyone else getting tired of seeing this word used so much by certain people
>on this newsgroup?
Yep, definitely a Gang. Damn, and when I thought I was gonna get into
Carnegie Hall.
>Bruce
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
Felix Ortony
>You better check out a book on torts, Felix. (I use Prosser, 4th ed.)
>Libel DOES have an explicit legal meaning which does not exempt MUDs or
>other electronic media as a site for its occurrence. Libel is a tort
>consisting of a false and malicious publication designed to defame a
>living person. Allow me to quote from Prosser, pp 744-745:
> "Libel [includes] any unprivileged, false, and malicious publication
> which by printing, writing, signs or pictures tends to expose a
> person to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule..."
Publication, eh? Look up the definition in Prosser of "publication,"
then try to apply it to MUDs. It's difficult -- that's why there's
in-process jurisdiction going on about the subject of free-floating
electronic media. No, there's no current libel law that is applicable
in court to MUDs. I have this dream that people in rec.games.mud
wouldn't resort to Nazis, lawyers, talk of rape, ad hominem attacks,
misuse of quotation or graveyard digging to defend their viewpoints
against reasoned argument. Fortunately, we may soon have rec.games.mud.info.
>Dawn
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
ObOb: ObMUD
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
>can't be duplicated on a MUD,
Really? Interesting... I would have thought words in an electronic medium
would fall under the category of either one or the other...
>misrepresentation and fraud are what virtual reality is all about,
So I *can* lie and make false claims for my own profit and your detriment
and it's perfectly ok? Cool.
I'd like it publicly known now that Felix Ortony has been my gay lover for
the past few years, that he likes crossdressing in women's clothing and
hanging out in bars in major cities across the country, and that he'll
sleep with anyone for the low low price of $50.
In addition, I can send you all true first edition copies of the Necronomicon,
not any of those silly forgeries but the real thing, for only $10. Send
all the money to me, cash preferred, but checks are acceptable.
>and mental damage isn't likely to result from a few green dots being
>displayed (though VDT tests *have* produced startling new finds).
Actually, I use a greyscale monitor. Perhaps this is where your logic(?)
fails.
>Cutting away all of the slack here, all that's left is social
>damage. I contend that if someone's social life can be irreparably ruined
>by anything I do or say on a MUD, then that person should, in all honesty,
>hang up the keyset and go to an AA meeting.
Damage does not have to be irreparable to be wrong. Also, even someone who
does have mental problems should be treated fairly on muds. Imagine someone
who has been a victim of RL rape, and comes on muds, and is inundated with
sexist comments, harassment, abuse, etc. The person had a problem, yes.
Does that mean what other people are doing is right? No.
>>If you truly believe the only way you can hurt someone else is physically,
>>then I have some prime real estate in Florida I'd like to sell you...
>
>Okay. If you truly believe that someone can sustain lasting emotional damage
>from the typed-in words of someone they've in all likelihood never met and
>who can be avoided by the press of a key, then you're believing something
>which should be wrong. That someone, if they exist, needs help which
>mudders, mudding, and rec.games.mud cannot provide.
If you truly believe that there is *no* non-physical damage I can do to you
through muds, then you're believe something which *is* wrong. Maybe what I
say *should* be wrong, but it's not, and that's the issue here.
>This sounds like I'm a heartless, cold piece of pond scum who does the same
>things Hurin-the-character does in muds. I'm not. I've been bothered by
>things people've done to my character (yeah, I've been toaded, and I've
>had private conversations splattered throughout a mud with a wizard's shout),
>and I personally feel that people who get off on such things are sick.
Er, then what's your argument? You just contradicted yourseld here.
>I'm not bringing legal terms into the situation at a whim, though, Bruce,
>and I recognize that, in some senses, it is 'just a game.'
In some senses, yes. Totally? No.
>After all, if you go to a football team tryout and get knocked on your
>rear end, who's to blame?
Right. Reagan should have been wearing a bullet proof vest, too. I mean,
you're a controversial figure, you should expect to get shot at.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock
> The other thing that's going on is that no obscene phone call is going
>to cause me lasting emotional damage. Even knowing that my privacy has
>been violated. I'm going to be pissed off, and I'm going to follow
>routes to prevent future occurences, such as answering-machine screening
>(gag files) or line traces (wizards) if it gets especially bad, but I'm
>not going to check into a support group or anything. To some extent,
>one has to deal with things or become societally dysfunctional.
But although you do "deal" with it, the obscence caller was still wrong for
doing it, and if serious damage was done to you, you have every right to seek
restitution and justice against the person.
Now, perhaps you don't agree with this. But it is the LAW at the moment, and
probably applies on muds, too.
Funny how the same side is saying two things: It's ok for us to do anything
to you on muds, but if you say things about *us* on muds, we'll call a lawyer.
>First, drag a net over the water to weed out the fools.
^^^^^
Anyone else getting tired of seeing this word used so much by certain people
on this newsgroup?
Bruce
Felix Ortony
>I'd like it publicly known now that Felix Ortony has been my gay lover for
>the past few years, that he likes crossdressing in women's clothing and
>hanging out in bars in major cities across the country, and that he'll
>sleep with anyone for the low low price of $50.
See, I don't care that you write this. It doesn't bother me (or Felix)
enough that your postmaster/systems administrator/lawyer is going to
hear about it tomorrow morning. Would a statement such as this, coming
from Bruce Sterling Woodcock, damage anyone? I don't think so. Especially
not on a MUD (average audience around 10-15). A couple thousand people
(unless they've pressed k) are reading the above. It still isn't important.
>Damage does not have to be irreparable to be wrong. Also, even someone who
>does have mental problems should be treated fairly on muds. Imagine someone
>who has been a victim of RL rape, and comes on muds, and is inundated with
>sexist comments, harassment, abuse, etc. The person had a problem, yes.
>Does that mean what other people are doing is right? No.
if it's not Nazis or lawyers, it's rapists. Can we lean away from these
one in a trillion special cases? If you think all damage is wrong, then
nobody should ever say anything on a MUD for fear of angering/upsetting
someone else. Basically, that's silly.
I go on to write, earlier:
>>Okay. If you truly believe that someone can sustain lasting emotional damage
>>from the typed-in words of someone they've in all likelihood never met and
>>who can be avoided by the press of a key, then you're believing something
>>which should be wrong. That someone, if they exist, needs help which
>>mudders, mudding, and rec.games.mud cannot provide.
To which Bruce responds:
>If you truly believe that there is *no* non-physical damage I can do to you
>through muds, then you're believe something which *is* wrong. Maybe what I
>say *should* be wrong, but it's not, and that's the issue here.
You missed the point. If I, or anyone, have to guess that I'm dealing
with the worst possible case -- a maltreated drunkard sensitive young
rape victim with brutal parents who was in the war and lost all his limbs
and who is gay, black, jewish and a scientologist, I'm not going to say
anything. Are you trying to (forgive me for saying this, everyone else)
abridge my right to free speech?
>>and I personally feel that people who get off on such things are sick.
>Er, then what's your argument? You just contradicted yourseld here.
No, I didn't. I think people such as Hurin who act unpleasant are entitled
to doing it, to some extent. I also think people who find real pleasure
in it (i.e. meta-unpleasant people) are sick. No contradiction.
>>I'm not bringing legal terms into the situation at a whim, though, Bruce,
>>and I recognize that, in some senses, it is 'just a game.'
>In some senses, yes. Totally? No.
OK. Define the borderline for me and everyone else.
>>After all, if you go to a football team tryout and get knocked on your
>>rear end, who's to blame?
>Right. Reagan should have been wearing a bullet proof vest, too. I mean,
>you're a controversial figure, you should expect to get shot at.
Nope ah nope nope. Your example involves death, brutality and harm. My
example involves embarrassment and a couple of curable bruises. Which
is more attuned to what happens on a MUD?
>Bruce
for...@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu
Rhodesia@Asylum
obMud: ashne is really a blond cheerleader from delta delta delta
Dawn Owens
>>I believe auzzie was referring to emotional pain, not physical pain, caused by
>>slander, misrepresentation, fraud, etc.
Felix Ortony:
>Well, libel and slander have explicit meanings in the legal system which
>can't be duplicated on a MUD...
You better check out a book on torts, Felix. (I use Prosser, 4th ed.)
Libel DOES have an explicit legal meaning which does not exempt MUDs or
other electronic media as a site for its occurrence. Libel is a tort
consisting of a false and malicious publication designed to defame a
living person. Allow me to quote from Prosser, pp 744-745:
"Libel [includes] any unprivileged, false, and malicious publication
which by printing, writing, signs or pictures tends to expose a
person to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule..."
It doesn't matter if you are disguised as a small African nation, a unicorn,
or anything else when you commit libel. It is still actionable.
Slander, on the other hand, wouldn't apply to things which happen on a MUD
because it refers only to false SPOKEN words which tend to damage the
reputation of another. But when you have libel, who needs slander, eh?
Dawn
Dawn Owens
>Publication, eh? Look up the definition in Prosser of "publication,"
>then try to apply it to MUDs. It's difficult -- that's why there's
>in-process jurisdiction going on about the subject of free-floating
>electronic media. No, there's no current libel law that is applicable
>in court to MUDs.
Publication:
"'Publication' is a word of art in defamation cases. It does not mean
printing, writing, or even publicity per se, but merely communication
of the defamatory words to some one [sic] other than the person
defamed..."
Prosser, _Torts: Cases and Notes_ 7th ed. page 1016-1017
You say there is "in-process jurisdiction going on"? That is a meaningless
statement. Do you mean there is "in-process litigation" going on?
Or do you mean that there is some question about which court would have
jurisdiction in an electronic media-related libel case? If you mean
that there is in-process litigation going on, then obviously libel in
the electronic communications creates a right of action. Otherwise
there would be no litigation, would there?
If you mean that there is a jurisdiction question, I would of course
expect that. Electronic communication is a complicated issue. But
a question about jurisdiction doesn't make a tort unactionable, it
just means that you have to figure out which court has the power to
hear the case.
I do not mean to imply that the law regarding electronic communications
is uncomplicated. I think it is much more complex that your blanket
statement-"The Law Does Not Apply"-allows. But of all electronic
communications issues (privacy, fraud, freedom of speech, etc), libel
seems one of the easiest. Afterall, Libel is so well-defined in the
law. All you need is a false, malicious statement made to a third
party for the purpose of defaming someone. Falsity is, of course,
important and truth is always an absolute defense to an action for
libel. Malice, with respect to libel, is the mental state that
accompanies the making of a false statement when the maker knows it to
be false, or when the maker recklessly disregards the truth or
falsity of it. Publication is required, and as Prosser indicates,
that merely means the making of the false, malicious statement to a
third party. And finally, the purpose of the statement must be
to defame. Under the law, defamation is the publication of anything
injurious to the good name or reputation of another, or which tends to
bring him/her into disrepute. There is no legal cause of action
called defamation: libel and slander may be founded on defamation, but
the right of action itself is libel or slander.
It is not unreasonable to believe that a court would find that libel in
a MUD is just as eggregious, just as actionable as libel anywhere else.
Dawn