From: johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Date: 6 Jan 1993 22:22:53 GMT
Organization: Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon
NNTP-Posting-Host: cajal.uoregon.edu
Keywords: n

In article <GREGB.93Jan6130718@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, gregb@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Snooze) writes:

>*laughs*
>Players have rights? Since when?

This statement demonstrates the very need for the conference. Before I
launch into this, though, I'd like to answer the question. The immediate,
and too-narrow answer is that in Singlenesia at least, and I suspect on
other muds as well, players have had rights since it opened to the public.

The real answer to the question is they always have had rights. The
question that needs to be asked is "When will these rights stop being
violated?"

The answer to this is "never", if you consider all of the muds as a whole.
However, some muds (a large number, gauging by the e-mail I've been
recieving) are keenly aware of this problem, and are doing something to
try to guarantee as far as possible that these rights remain intact.

I am speaking of basic human rights here. The right to privacy is probably
the #1 issue as far as muds are concerned. The right to hold private
conversation, to not be spied upon, and to not have personal information
revealed against the player's wishes. There are, of course, many others,
such as the right to be free from harrassment, the right to speak ones mind,
etc.

Let me clarify some points made by earlier postings. A player does *not*
have the "right" to play on a mud. This is indeed a privelege. A player
does *not* have the right to violate other players.

Everyone on the muds, players, gods, wizards, what-have-you, are human
beings. You do not become less human, or shed your human rights, simply
because you sit at a keyboard and log into a mud. This is the issue. A
mud can be likened to a hotel in this sense. The hotel is owned and run
by someone. When you rent a room, you do not assume ownership of it,
yet you *can* expect your rights to be upheld. You can reasonably assume
that no one is spying on you, for instance. How is a mud so different?

The point of the conference is not to generate reams of "laws" that gods
must obey. The point is to generate a statement from as many gods as
agree, as to what rights they consider to be sacred. The reason this is
a GoodThing is that it will allow players to have some information with
which to excersize their one, single, inviolable, indisputable right.
To leave. Players will have some indication as to what worlds they
can expect to be treated well on. They also have some indication as to
what a number of gods consider to be reasonable expectations for what
rights will be protected.

Now muds are rather unique, in that on each mud is a handful of people
who have the power to violate other people's rights wholesale. It's
very, very easy to do, even without thinking of it. Probably most, if
not all, gods and wizards have done this at some time or another in
the course of their jobs. I know I have. However, the *ability* to spy,
or to otherwise harrass and violate players, does not mean that doing
so is *right*. It is still a violation. Cops have guns, and can kill
you, but this does not give them the right to use the guns in any
situation they choose.

This conference is meant to, in effect, provide a consensus view as
to what uses of god and wizard powers are acceptable, and what uses
aren't.

-- 
John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc