[MUD-Dev] curses and grief players
dughi at imaxx.net
Mon Jul 17 18:24:20 New Zealand Standard Time 2000
> From: Greg Miller <gmiller at classic-games.com>
> > stoddart at slip.net wrote:
> > > From: Greg Miller <gmiller at classic-games.com>
> > >
> > > What's fair about admin-controlled systems? "I dislike you, so I'll ban
> > > you." "Kill-stealing is allowed, but PK isn't--if you don't want to be
> > > kill-stolen from, go play somewhere else." "You must wear what I
> > > consider your best eq at all times or be banned" Those are real rules
> > > from real muds. As a player, I find them unfair. Other players may find
> > > my preferred rules unfair.
> > If a mud has a bad admin then it's really irrelevent as to whether or not it
> > has a player controlled justice system or not. The admin can still do
> > whatever they want, for their own personal amusement.
> That's not the point. The problem is that no two people agree on every
> aspect of fairness. Thus, the best approach is to leave that decision to
> the broadest possible group of people.
That may be the best approach when the group of people has a large
enough population to give a proper showing to which side of the argument
people want, AND at the same time is a situation where the decision is
opinion based. Most hobby sized muds do not have that sort of population
online to make a decision - just who's online now clics. At the same
time, shouldn't be allowed to make a game-affecting 'vote' in the
situation where they a situation is black and white. Break rule, take
Come to think of it, most larger than hobby sized mud's (like
EQ/UO) really wouldn't care for the system either, literally. The time
and effort to learn about the issue, combined with lack of knowledge of
the participants would kill every situation with apathy. Granted, if they
all were forced to vote, that would probably be a decent showing.
> > On the other hand a good mud admin normally doesn't have a stake in player
> > affairs other than a consideration for the 'best interests of the mud'.
> > Thus they're much more likely to be impartial than players whose primary
> > interest is their own amusement.
> Nonsense. The best interest of the players is the best interest of the mud.
Yes, but do they know that? No, because there's no such thing as
'players'. There's only 'player' - and even though there's alot of them,
they are not one big happy, hippy commune. They're out for themselves.
Most of them have at least one other person that they actively dislike,
and would enjoy making the game a more difficult place for them, just
because they would enjoy their displeasure.
They're working for their personal-level best interest. Sometimes
that may be for the mud, but for the most part, it's just for them. Given
the chance, many of them screw the mud over as a whole, rather than miss
out on their own individual characters gain.
> > 'Mud Cop' is, of course, one of the most stressfull activities for an admin.
> And being subject to the whims of admins is one of the more stressful
> activities for a player. Admin-controlled "justice" systems fall into
> two categories: those that strictly enforce rigid, easily abused rules
> and those that leave it up to admin judgement and force the player to
> guess what the rules are in any specific case.
Oh, and a form of justice represented by those who happen to be
online at the moment is SO much more discrete and regulated. I mean, the
player will never have to guess what the rules are in any specific case;
nor will they have to worry about rules being easily abused by the
opinion at the time of the ruling body. ;)
Face it, admin and players both have the same problem, the human
condition. They're both as likely to decide based not just on right and
wrong, but like and dislike. I've made decisions before where - despite
someone was in the wrong, I felt the victim had it coming to him/her - I
ignored the wrondoing. Players are just as likely to fall suspect to it.
Groups of players and groups of admins, you've got the same thing.
The difference between players and admins is that admins have a
defined role to make the game enjoyable for all, and to do what needs to
be done to achieve that goal as best as possible, many times at the
expense of popular opinion. You don't have to be the most hated Admin to
be the best, but you will have to step on someones toes or you're not
doing your job. Of course, players don't have defined roles. Have fun is
about as close as it gets.
An admin may be succeptible to the human condition, and may make
decisions based on poor critera. Players do the same thing, but they
don't care one way or the other. Admins at least understand what they're
doing, and so, are more likely to do the right thing.
Of course, an automated system backed by as few admin as possible
would be my favored system. The less people are able to fudge the system,
the better. If the system misses something, you write it in the next
iteration, and make admin deal with it till then. I prefer rigidly
defined rules, but the rigidness is in the spirit, not the wording. Just
like real life, if they say 'Don't murder.' they mean 'Not in a box, not
with a fox, not on a train, not in the rain....'. Sure, rigid, but pretty
obvious when you're wrong.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev