[MUD-Dev] curses and grief players

J C Lawrence claw at kanga.nu
Fri Jul 28 12:25:40 New Zealand Standard Time 2000


On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:50:36 -0400 
John Buehler <johnbue at email.msn.com> wrote:

>> J C Lawrence Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 2:21 PM

>   Note that if you know that your players WILL develop the
> expectation that they control the outcome with their vote -
> regardless of what you say - then I'm back to calling 'foul'.

There's a horribly ugly line in there.  What about if I know that
*some* players will develop that expectation of control, and that
others won't?  How does that value vary as the percentages of
"expecting" players and non-expecting vary?  Is it *really* affected 
by protestations on the King's part that you're ONLY getting his
ear, not his complicity?

This is not easy stuff, tho we may work very very hard to keep it
simple.  Worse, there are those who will deliberately try and take
advantage of our simplicity and actively cultivate greater
complexity (such as encouraging people to think that they have
control).

Aieee!

> It's all about intent.  

I'd argue slightly and say its all about realised intent.  What you
meant to do doesn't matter as much as what you are seen to have
done.

> It simply means that he sets up the rules such that they WORK for
> the MUD, for him and for the players.  

You are beginning to sound like me.

> Do all admins believe that it is impossible to maintain a
> desireable player base by treating players with fairness and
> respect?

I'm not the right person to ask this question of -- I'm a bit of a
Full Disclosure fellow in general.  The fact that full disclosure
automatically connotates a certain level of respect for the other
parties (you are worthy of knowing and respecting the data I
present), doesn't help my arguments on other approaches.

That said, I suspect a lot of this debate is centered more on
viewpoint, on how an administrative action is viewed from a
particular vantage rather than on how it is was actually
accomplished.  Given the right starting point, Ghandi was a
seriously disturbed and malicious individual.  Given another
starting point he was rather more than a decent fellow.  Between the
two descriptions, each of which is accurate and true per its
vantage, there remains the actual Ghandi -- which is totally
irrelevant.

History is not only written by the winners, it states what the
winners wish they had done.  Some with viewpoints and how events are
perceived and presented.

*Functionally* there is no difference between Jon's presented
methods and mine.  Functionally, perceived externally, they can both 
appear identical.  Internally they can also be identical.  One may
question aspects of intent and perceived intent, yes, but is there
really a difference between:

  a) I pull out a gun and shoot the man who is about the throw the
baby under the wheels of the bus because I hate his guts and want
him dead?

and:

  b) I pull out a gun and shoot the man who is about to throw the
babe under the wheels of the bus because I want to save the baby?

Both end up with a dead man and a (hopefully) saved baby.  

Both, in aftersight, can be fully and accurately presented from
either vantage.

However, this is heading way off-topic, even for me.

--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                               Other: coder at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/        Keys etc: finger claw at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


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



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list