[MUD-Dev] Re: Marian's Tailor vs. Psychopaths

apocalypse at pipeline.com apocalypse at pipeline.com
Sun Oct 4 19:17:24 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998

>> Marian Griffith:
>> >1- A lot friendlier. (After all you can talk to people without having to
>> >   assume they are out to kill you)

Me (shakti):
>> I doubt it. Just because a person dosent have the option to kill another
>> player in no way means friendlier. They can verbally, publicly (chat)
>> privately(tell),physically(emote/social), and with charmed mobs,
>> be VERY unfriendly. If the guy has a bad day, and wants to take it
>> out on someone, just because he cant kill someone, dosent mean
>> he is just going to sit there quietly wallowing in misery.

Marian Griffith :
>What really frightens me is that you seem to think it normal for some
>player to take his bad mood out on others.

Hehe, I think it is human nature in general, and to think otherwise is
"we hurt the ones we love the most", if this is true, isnt it a wonder we do
terrible things to people we hardly know?
I am in no way condoning it, but Im saying it is a pervasive part of human
nature, and the sooner it is considered the "norm" the sooner it can
be addressed and changed. I dont think there is a human alive that could
honestly say they havent commited some act of senseless violence (including
verbal abuse, social abuse, "backstabbing", physical abuse,
and all the other nastiness we do). So, the fact that it is normal for
to release anger in this way, we can then better describe how to deal with

Me (shakti):
>> And here is where my
>> magna extremis argument comes to bear. I dont think a mud
>> should try to or is able to, enable anyone to be more empatic
>> than they are. Once the computer is shut off, and tommy goes
>> back to school, and gets beat up by those nasty boys in gym, he
>> is surely not going to do a psyche eval on them. He will probably
>> go home, and vent his angst/tension on some alien invading race
>> in one of his many escapes from reality (games).

Marian Griffith:
>Which is fine to me if it is a game.  I think he crosses a line if it
>is other players he wants to beat up  in turn.  It may be understand-
>able that he does but those other players are not on the game for his
>convenience. They want to have a good time too. If that happens to be
>fighting battles with other players then it is fine, but for those of
>the players who have other interests something has to be done.

Actually it is also considered by many psychologists that wanting to
hurt other things of your nature (other humans) is more prevalent
than wanting to do harm to abstract things, i.e why is murder
the number one violent crime, and not property destruction?
(this from my friends wife who is one).
So, if we again assume its the "norm" to want to do so, then
again, we can implement measures appropriate to such a large scale issue.
Thinking its a "small crowd" thing dosent hold true because of real life
evidence such as the ratio of players playing "violent" (where killing of
in some form is allowed) to those playing non-violent muds.If your looking
change the "herds direction" you have to be able to capture their interest.

me (shakti) :
>> Should a game, operative word game, try to solve someones RL problems?

Marian Griffith :
>I think not. You could perhaps have a try and establish an social en-
>vironment that encourages desirable behaviour,  but even that is very
>difficult.  I also think that something like this is inevitable for a
>truly large scale game.  Bad (or rather: destructive)  players have a
>disproportional effect on a game.

I agree, the "good stuff" is very quickly forgotten whereas "bad stuff" is
remembered by all to the end of time.

>> Marian Griffith:
>> >As long as people continue to ignore
>> >the fact that there are real people with real feelings behind the
>> >characters and that to others it may -not- be 'just a game' to be
>> >attacked the problem of virtual sociopaths is going to exist.

Me (shakti):
>> I doubt the  player ignores it, im sure they are counting on it.
>> For what other reason, than to try to pawn off her bad feelings
>> on someone else?
>> Im sorry, but even mother nature kicks the baby bird out of the nest.
>> Everyone sulks, everyone has temper outbursts, and everyone,
>> even those 80 year old plinths of wisdom have either acted out
>> or contemplated revenge (socially, or physically).

Marian Griffith:
>Yes, but does that make it right? desirable? acceptable?

Im not sure if any behavior is acceptable, that is up to each
person to decide. I can say this, if its a pickle im after, a potato
chip wont do. So if we provide an outlet (and this is key to
eliminating "un-desireables"), a mock arena?, battle of the wits?
paintball-ish event? then you can indeed have all types of players.
Those that want conflict, can get it, and not hurt those that dont.
Trying to lobotimize the base primal human nature is just not
an option, it will never go away, its in all of us, its just to what degree
it manifests.

(Btw, im not the devils advocate here, im trying to point out that to do
  something on this scale in this scope, we have to really face the fact
  that "peace" is not the norm at all, and violence is, as very profoundly
  demonstrated by the past, and current events. To change it, it has to
  be accepted, not ignored or ran from.)


More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list