[MUD-Dev] Community Relations

Matthew Mihaly diablo at best.com
Thu Jan 20 23:10:02 New Zealand Daylight Time 2000

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> > Like the way people generally tend to act? Given that I have yet to meet
> > someone who does not bend morality to fit circumstances, it's hardly a
> > surprise that admins do it. Christians are against murder, unless it's
> > done on a really large scale it seems. 
> There there Matt.  You need to find another bogeyman to beat.  At least dare
> I suggest, "publicly".  We Christians haven't been let on a really good rampage 
> in such a long time.  The last two centuries have been quite the party for 
> the "enlightened atheist".   Yeah I know, atheists are against murder, but they 
> seem to do it on an incredibly really large scale.  They do put the E in 
> efficiency.  Now I'll stop here and apology in advance for my bigotry and 
> stereotyping.   

I wasn't attacking Christians in particular, just using this as an example
of general hypocrisy, which we are all guilty of. I still lapse into
anarcho-capitalist rhetoric and theory sometimes, even though I have never
been able to reconcile myself with the anarchists prohibition against the
initiation of force, and the capitalist idea of private property. I act
like I believe it though because, frankly, it's easier. It shames me a bit
whenever I think about it. I don't think atheists are against murder
either, incidentally. There's nothing inherent about atheism that is
anti-murder. Also, you could make the argument that when "Christians" do
go to war, or order war to begin, they aren't really Christians,
particularly as I don't believe they are sincere in asking for forgiveness
for their actions. Kind of off-topic though.

> Anyhow isn't this the anti-thesis of the topic "Community Relations".  Presumably 
> WE want better relations not worse.  The collective WE, meaning mud-dev is
> frankly interested in better relations.  Ooops, that's a mistake, eh?  I mean what 
> right do I have to even begin to speak for such a diverse group.  Anti-patterns of 
> mud administration are good fodder I think, and appropriate in the realm of what 
> not to do.  Defending a bad example in the context of the rights of an administrator 
> to do it, doesn't really turn bad around to good, nor does it prevent a sort of 
> community judgment or consensus forming that "doing X is a bad thing".   
> Nor is community consensus always a bad thing.  I acknowledge there can be a 
> lot of corner cases here, where the beneficial qualities of some administrative 
> actions aren't immediately obvious.

Sorry John, but I'm not going to tame my arguments, particularly as I
believe they are adequately well-reasoned. A community judgement may form,
but frankly, that's unlikely to affect my opinion on the matter. I also
think it's fairly bad form asking me to go with the flow. Academic science
suffers greatly from that sort of attitude, I think. If I was on here,
spouting things on the level of "You suck" that'd be one thing. Raph made
a sweeping statement, and I frankly disagree with it. If you're referring
to my Christians remark, well, sorry, but if we want to avoid ever
possibly offending anyone, then I think we better steer away from saying
anything negative about anyone or any group in real life (Capricious Mud
Admins included).

I mean, you seem to be saying that since none of us actually are
interested in running our muds badly, there is no point in talking
abstractly about it. That's fine, but I also didn't bring it up in the
abstract. I just responded. I also think I should point out again, that I
have personally known an admin/owner who made a very good living from a
commercial text mud, and he was the kind of admin we all love to

> The bottom line is 90% of players don't enjoy being f**ked around with by
> some sadistic psychotic administrator.  And 90% of us don't plan to run 
> our muds like the Marquis de Sade.  So is arguing about the legal rights and
> morality of the 10% relevant?  Do WE think they are entitled to some sort of 
> social justice or community respect?

Actually no, I don't think the players are entitled to anything that was
not explicitly promised. I firmly believe the legal owners fully own their
world, and that only they have the power to cede any sort of ownership or
control to the users. And yes, I darn well think arguing about that 10% is
relevant. Again, I'm unwilling to shut up just because 90% of you disagree
with me.  If that's the standard, then I'll leave the list. But
presumably, if the topic was not of interest, there wouldn't be this
flurry of posts on it.

> > I have no problem at all with
> > infanticide, or just leaving a baby outside to die of the elements, for
> > instance, providing it is your baby.
> We all have these odd beliefs and opinions.  I happen to think that the 37 million 
> babies that have been murdered in the last 25 years in the US is sickening.  
> It's a peculiar notion I hold, that is frankly beyond debate.  

Sure, I understand that, and I respect it, but on the other hand, when we
are talking about issues related to muds, I would hope that no one here is
going to absolutely insist and refuse to ever question, anything. There's
enough of a lack of diversity in the basic style of muds. I don't think
that needs encouraging with dogma.


MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list