[MUD-Dev] curses and grief players

Greg Miller gmiller at classic-games.com
Wed Jul 19 08:17:16 New Zealand Standard Time 2000

  Patrick Dughi wrote:

> > From: Greg Miller <gmiller at classic-games.com>
> > 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
> punishment.

They're all opinion-based, and I don't see the population issue as a 

> 	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.

Not all systems have to be based on voting, and UO has always moved as 
much of governance as possible onto players. As for apathy, it's 
essential to make any sort of democracy or pseudo-democracy tolerable.

> 	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.

The best interest of the mud is the best interest of the players because 
the players are the mud. If the other players find one person to be a 
liability, that person is a liability.

> 	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.

Yes, but since any individual's interest will tend to align with that of 
other players more often than not...

> 	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.

Exactly. And if the players are having fun, you have a successful mud.

> 	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

As has been discussed here often, automated systems are the ones most 
subject to abuse.
http://www.classic-games.com/              http://www.indie-games.com/
Smarter than God? No, but I'm smarter than he was when he was my age.
*** Please limit .sigs to four lines and avoid HTML mail or posts. ***

MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list