[MUD-Dev] players who "take away from the game"

Philip Loguinov -- Draymoor fibhufky at erols.com
Wed Sep 8 16:01:16 New Zealand Standard Time 1999


From: J C Lawrence <claw at cp.net>

>>> This I think is the real goal.  Back when (Jan/Feb of this year)
>>> Raph and I talked (phone call) of how to design and implement
>>> player defined legal systems and justice enforcement systems.
>>> The basic idea which I was pursueing was:
>>>
>>> -- A player or group of players claim title to a geographical
>>> area of the game world.
>>>
>>> -- They then define a legal system for that area (in essence the
>>> justice process).
>>>
>>> -- Next comes "law" definition.  What is proscribed, for whom?
>>>
>>> -- Lastly comes implementation (manufacture, placement,
>>> maintenence etc) of detection equipment (something has to twll
>>> you a crime has been committed).
>>>
>>> >From players defined by the justice process in the "guild" (for
>>> want of a better term) would receive alerts of detected crimes,
>>> and the process would roll into effect from there in a rather
>>> hands off manner.  Players would be responsible for application
>>> and enforcement, but the system would take much of the load of
>>> detection and reporting.
>
>> Sure, we do all of this already, aside from the automatic
>> detection.  (actually, we do have some automatic punishemnts. If
>> someone influential in a city declares you an enemy of that city,
>> a couple different automated defences will attack you whenever you
>> are in that city (telepaths, archers, etc)).
>
>Okay, let's clarify here:
>
>  I can log on, get together with a couple mates, define ourselves
>as the sole members of a new society which we define, go out in the
>boonies and declare some area our new empire, write a set of laws of
>our devising and capriciousness in respect to our society and which
>will only be applied to interactions with members of our society,
>define a justice process as ludicrous and impractical as we may care
>for that society, and then enact them -- all without ever requiring
>the presence or cooperation of an admin in any regard?


Aside from the part about automatic detection, i think this is perfectly
fine.
Any person or group can declare themselves the sole ruler and law of any
given region. Just as IRL, i could declare myself dictator of australia.
Now,
the problem here is that, while i can declare whatever i want, i nead a way
of enforcing it (this is why i'm excluding the automation part, which i'm
against anyway). For example, I play a druid on Achaea and as such get to
choose a room as my "grove." Please correct me if i'm wrong Matt, but if
i was powerfull enough, could i not declare certain laws on people who are
in and arround that grove? As long as i could enforce it, it would be law.



>> Basically, the problem I see with formally instituting detection
>> methods is that very very few crimes can be automatically
>> detected. For instance, let's say the law is: No murdering of
>> innocents. How is the system to define innocents?
>
>Quite.  The problem is that the implied "innocent" adjective is a
>subjective definition.  The mirror problem is that requiring rules
>based on absolute terms only invites manipulation of the absolutes
>in question.

Thats why super-automation doesn't work. Sure, some automation
does help (such as mobs reporting deaths they see), but no
automation could, or should, determine if a crime was committed.
Whatever player group is enforcing laws in the area would have to
be approached by the victim. Then they would have to investigate.
Proof would have to be provided, though. Just like in the real world,
a person saying they were murdered isn't enough. And if the law is
complex, neither is a mobs. Furthermore, not everything mobs might
see or report would be what they think it is (i'm a believer in MobAI)
What they think might be the execution of a follower by an evil mage
might actually be a necromancer sending an undead servent to fetch
something from the underworld.


>
>> Or what if the law is that one may not attack a fellow citizen
>> unless that citizen has insulted your honour first.
>
>Another subjectively defined adjective.
>
>> I don't see how a system can be coded to automatically detect such
>> things. The rulers of most of our guilds and cities have written
>> up codes, but just like in real life, events are never black and
>> white.
>
>Which is why you retain the ability for the members of a society to
>report violations of that societies rules.  This has the added and
>not insignificant benefit of allowing false accusations, threats of
>accusation, framing of the accused, etc.


I like the idea of false accusations and threats and all, but theres a
little
caveat with your system. Every time, every person will be found guilty
by every person who is not friends with him. Why? because they get
his stuff! If you reward people for saying a person guilty, it will be a
rare
case for anyone to be found innocent.

>> That's why human judges exist.
>
>Yup, thus my justice system.


I wouldn't exactly call it justice, just another way to screw people over.
Neads lawyers and a judge, and no reward for any of them (oh, and not
random jurors either). Furthermore, i would get rid of the automation,
especially the teleport. If you want to bring people to justice, you have to
catch them and subdue them, or if they are already proved guilty, kill them.


-Phil

>--
>J C Lawrence                              Internet: claw at kanga.nu
>----------(*)                            Internet: coder at kanga.nu
>...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
>http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list