[MUD-Dev] Re: Black Snow Revisited
the_logos at achaea.com
Mon Apr 1 20:40:11 New Zealand Daylight Time 2002
On Mon, 27 May 2002, ghovs wrote:
> On Friday 29 March 2002 20:01, Matt Mihaly wrote:
> Would you even be entitled to discover the names of people using a
> trade board for just this heinous purpose, through monitoring the
> board for realnames?
I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't know what the law
says. I'd be REALLY unlikely to bother though as it seems like a lot
>> They do reserve that right, I believe. It's not user-hostile
>> either. It's disruptive-user-hostile.
> So a bad law is only bad for criminals? I don't think it works
> like that. All rules apply to all who (have to) agree to them, not
> just the rotten apples among those. This is begging for mistakes
> which then are never rectified, due to that excuse being what they
> all say.
Not at all. However, I'm of the belief that the best possible
government is benevolent monarchy. As the well-being and good will
of my users are at the forefront of my mind, due to the fact that I
can't pay the bills without it, I am far better qualified to decide
what is good for the world as a whole than the users are, who are
mainly just bogged down in rivalries.
> This is why most dues-paying members-only clubs have procedures to
> appeal to suspension and expulsion.
But MUDs aren't clubs. They aren't run by the users. They're a
commercial service provided by someone else, for your pleasure.
> Maybe, maybe not. What if you defined it as 'disruptive conduct
> which significantly diminishes entertainment value of the product'
> ? A simple vote from a (semi?)representative group could clear up
> if it is disruptive or not.
Disruptive is in the eye of the beholder. To most players,
disruptive means "disruptive AND in a different faction than me."
They generally cannot separate themselves from their prejudices
gained through playing the game. Administrators, particularly in a
commercial environment, have a do-or-die reason to make as many
customers as happy as possible.
> Ofcourse, you should never try to name specific misdeeds. That's
> not very effective, since you simply don't know all of them. But
> the way it's set up now, is that it is all decided at your sole
> discretion, with no notification, and no appeal procedure (not any
> -mandatory- ones, don't know if you or Mythic or whoever do it
> anyway). That doesn't sound like you're willing to take a stand
> for your every decision, regardless of if you actually are willing
> to or not.
I'm NOT willing to take a stand or defend every decision. Do you
know how many decisions we make every day? The users would have to
pay a -lot- more money to support the people and time needed to do
> You -can-, however, describe the negative impact you are trying to
> avoid pretty accurately, so you could define that instead of
> leaving all your actions unjustified. It doesn't seem to hinder
> what is normally done to keep a game clean, to specify how you
> keep it clean.
We could, yes, but it still boils down to the same thing: We decide.
> You're talking to the wrong man -- I live in a country where those
> negotiable affection providers even have a union :) I'm not sure
> that such distinctions exist in dutch law. Ofcourse, IANAL, so I
> don't know if there might be some dutch law to spite me after all.
Chuckle, fair enough. You know what I mean though.
> My whole point is, that it isn't quite decent to assume your right
> to watch your players even outside your game. Yes it's your turf,
> yes you can refuse entry to anyone, no you can't follow people
> around and check if they're being good little players.
Well, I don't personally watch our players outside the
game. However, if something they were doing outside the game was
affecting Achaea, I'd be interested in it, and would seek to learn
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev