From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Followup-To: rec.games.mud.misc
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 00:48:12 GMT

[warning: I am probably going to flame.  press 'n' if you can't cope with it.]

Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) intones:

>Response:
>
>Such a conference would be quite historically significant, in my mind.  

From what I hear from attendees, it was -- as predicted -- a combination
dick size war, minor riot, and festival of whining.  A gathering of rabble,
rather than a nobleminded conference.

>Besides the fact that it is of a philosophical nature, largely taken as a
>metaphysical question but reasonably placed within the realm of socio-
>politics, 

*consoling pat on the shoulder*  There, there -- everyone feels real good
after their first philosophy class, but you'll be a *sophomore* next year,
and might get to take *symbolic logic!*

>what you are suggesting has all the ramifications of certain
>democratic controversies upon which the US and many other countries have
>been founded. 

the controversies were democratic?  Perhaps they equitably shared 
responsibility amongst themselves and voted one controversy to represent
the needs of the others?

To put it very simply, trying to use educated language when you don't know
what the words mean makes you and your position look really poor.  The US
was founded after a bloody war of separation in which countless thousands
died.  The war was initiated because one side believed that it was being
oppressed by a malicious enemy.

Whining because someone spoofed your character in an obscene action is not
even close to comparable to the pain and humiliation which the founders
of the country were forced to suffer.  George Washington couldn't type
QUIT.  He was forced to be where he was, and did not choose to be born 
an American.

> This makes the Space Madness 'Boston Tea Party' reference
>quite relevant, perhaps undermining the intent of its source.

Perhaps you mean the Random 'Boston Tea Party', or are you going with the
fallacious assumption that we all think alike just because we're superior
to just about anyone else?

In any case, I'm real sure a wizard banning you from his mud is very much
like the practice of oppressive taxation.  I'm sure your livelihood is
suffering brutally under the thumb of the dictatorial mud maintainers.
Yeah.

>The underlying difficulty in the discussion of philosophical issues is
>the lack of consistent definition with regard to terms. 

You're close.  The underlying difficulty in the discussion is that someone
has attempted to use the word "rights" to describe what they have when they
use a mud.  Since most readers of this post have grown up under the influence
of the West, "rights" is a charged word which is almost a call to action.
A confused, desperate minority has run with the ball even further, calling
for a didactic, enforced strongly worded document outlining the exact
responsibilities that a mud maintainer has towards his populace.

>As others in this thread have pointed out, cyberMUDs are privately
>owned and operated, accessible but not obtainable by the public.
>What this means to the players is comparable to what it would mean to a
>visitor in any amusement park or movie theater.

This analogy is patently false, as anyone in that critical second philosophy
course will be able to tell you when you get into your second semester.
Visitors to a movie theatre pay a great deal of money for entry, and as such
enter into a mutual contract (money for satisfaction/happiness).  Visitors to
an amusement park pay even more and expect even more.  Visitors to my house
pay nothing, and are guaranteed nothing, especially if they walk in uninvited.
Visitors to my mud are guaranteed zilch; anyone who knows about any mud I run
is usually guaranteed to be Really Smart anyway, so they tend to lack these
delusions about privacy and safety.

That doesn't mean that I spy on anyone -- I have morals and a sense for 
what is appropriate.

>Therefore the issue resolves into the comparison between cyber and
>noncyber environments.  If it can be established that people have
>'rights' (by whatever definition) within an amusement park, then
>it may be inferred that this also applies within a cyberMUD.

'cyber'?  I'm sitting here typing on a keyboard, man.  We're talking manual
analog to digital conversion, not jacking into the net.  However, let me
also point out for rhetorical completeness that your 'it may be inferred'
cannot be inferred (i.e. if it can be established that I can spit on the
ground, I can spit on your sister).

>Again, this parallels rather directly the situation of an amusement park
>or movie house.  While the customer (or guest if there is no charge)
>may not be able to demand entrance, they may consult authorities and
>level complaints regarding harrassment or unfair business practices.

This stuff is also covered in the second semester philosophy course. 
You'll love it.  Anyway, you're wrong again.  If you are refused entry into
a bar, you're refused entry into a bar, period, full stop, and have no
recourse but to go home and sob.  You can't "consult the authorities"
about the "unfair business practices".  If someone in their own home
calls you a tedious sapsucker, you can't "level complaints regarding
harrassment [sic]."

>If such harrassment can be substantiated, then, at least where I live
>(in the US), reparations may be required, of the management or the
>individual(s) involved with the incident, by the judicial system.

Don't try to play lawyer when you don't have any idea what you're talking
about.

>Customers/guests who scream 'fire!' or who are in some way abusive or
>annoying to the others present may be asked to leave, yet it would
>depend upon the laws of the surrounding country as to whether or
>not they could be FORCED to leave from an amusement park. 

You're utterly wrong.  No country exists where someone cannot be expelled
from private property by the owner of that property.

> Most likely
>the authorities would be called and a charge of 'trespassing' levelled
>if the person refused to vacate.

You keep levelling things, but you're still naive and confused.  If someone
makes a nuisance of themselves on private property -- even in a democracy,
which THE USENET AND MUDS ARE NOT -- then the owner of that property can do
whatever he wants to appropriately remove that person from the premises.  
Ever heard of "bouncers"?  Or "mall cops"?  Get out of the house much?

>Can such things be transferred to a cyber environment?

When they come up with a cyber environment, I'm sure the question will be
quite interesting.

>  This is what I
>find fascinating about the entirety of the discussion here.  How alike
>are cyber and noncyber realms that we might assume that a person who
>'logged on' to a cyberMUD who was being annoying was 'trespassing' if
>they insisted upon remaining connected?  The analogy would not
>seem to be supportable for the reason that telepresence is not
>given inaliable rights by any(?) government.

Ooh, you actually hit the nail on the head, even if you did tragically
misuse "inalienable".  No government presides over muds.  Each mud is
a self-contained unit.  Those who have the power make the rules, and
the powerful happen to be the maintainers of the muds.

>This is the real issue being debated.  How are cyber and noncyber realms
>different?  How does telepresence compare to physical presence?  What
>can be applied to both, and how are these to be applied?

"Telepresence" does not compare to physical presence any more than crudely
drawn stick pictures of fish compare to great white sharks.  There's no
great philosophical or sociological point behind it.  A painting of fire
cannot keep you warm.  A picture of a bag does not hold apples.

>Singly, a business is not required to cater to the wishes of a particular
>individual.  Yet if 'player unions' were formed, then the situation would
>resemble what we have today with 'consumer unions'.  To my knowledge,
>consumer unions were formed to prevent unfair marketing and distribution
>of 'inferior' products.  In other words, it was an organized effort to
>apply 'purchasing power' as leverage to improve the quality of the
>goods available on the market.

You've always been free to vote with QUIT.  What's more intelligent about
this debate, apart from the fact that you think that you've come up with
something clever?

>If player participation IS important to the administrator (and this
>parallels the value placed upon the consumer for hir capital or the
>worker for hir horsepower)

hir?  Ew, how 92.

>Seen from the perspective above, a conference of cyberMUD administrators
>is also an important first step toward guaranteeing the continuing quality
>of the cyber environment.

There is no cyber environment.  You've been led astray.  Moreover, a
conference of mud administrators will always accomplish next to nothing,
as consensus is unlikely across the vast domain of muds.

>Personally I enjoy the view that rights are social fictions,
>legislated by a judicial system which interprets the philosophical
>foundation of its government and enforced by an administration
>which conforms to the dictates of that judicial body.

Sensible.

>Given this perspective, talking about 'rights' as though they
>were anything but imaginary (BUT IMPORTANTLY USEFUL) would be
>like discussing the nature and appearance of God's teeth.  It
>may be that such discussion is useful to many involved, but
>to those who don't regard them as substantial, claims regarding 
>their existence seem immature and foolish. 

Even more sensible.  In respect of this sudden sensibility, I will
refrain from flaming the rest of this post.

>
>Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva
>Tagi@Cup.Portal.Com  or  portal!cup.portal.com!Tagi@uunet.uu.net
>871 Ironwood Drive
>San Jose, CA 95125


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.misc