HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:17:53 GMT


johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:

>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?

Expect this analogy to soon be countered with the argument:  "but
everything is provided free for you on my mud, by the sweat of my
unsung hero's brow.  If it weren't for me, your little mud on which
you proclaim your rights wouldn't even exist.  THEREFORE, if you don't
like it, go somewhere else, but DON'T COMPLAIN."

This is a good exercise.  What do you say to this person?  (n.b.  I
should know, I tried a similar analogy, with a person who had allowed
guests to come over and start up some kind of project, say an art
project, within his four walls, and this project had grown into
a continuing, community experience which the guests had devoted much
of their energies to.)

-jim

-- 
* My 3 rules for meeting women *
1.  Seek simple women with common sense and a capacity for commitment.
2.  Stay away from women entangled in *any* way with another man.  Apply
    the word "entangle" broadly, and don't let them fool you.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.misc,rec.games.mud.tiny
From: spierce@wam.umd.edu (Stephen Pierce)
Subject: Re: Conference on Admin Ethics (WAS: Conf. on Player's Rights)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:13:29 GMT

  Excuse me, since I have not been mudding for long, but I can not see
what everyone's problem with this conference is. If you are going to 
attend, then you will, if not you won't. It's that simple. I am planning
on attending or at least reading the logs. 

  I also do not see people's objections to this "declaration of intent"
that the conference will draft. Every god will (and correct me if 
I am mistaken)  have a chance to review it and see if they agree. If not
they don't 'sigh' it, nor mention it ever again..If they do, then they
'sigh' it, and (presumably) post it on their MU* for players to read. The
purpose is _informing_ the players what the ^%$& is going on on that
God's MU*. The players can take it or leave it, just like before, but
now they know _what_ they are taking and leaving. 

  I personally think it's a good idea. Something like this is invalauble
to starting God's like myself and my team at Maryland. It helps US set
policy! We don't have to think about it, nor ask a dozen people, nor 
(worst) 'make it up as we go along'. We all win! Players, Wizes, Gods!

Exasperated,
  Steve

Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:15:45 GMT


russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad) writes:

>>The goal of the conference will be to draft a general "player's bill of rights"
>>of sorts. This document would be developed by the attendees and will be posted
>>in these newsgroups, along with the names of the gods (and their muds) who agree
>>to implement the document in their worlds.
>
>Just so the Space Madness people feel better, let me assure you:
>
>I will not be attending, and I will not be signing.
>
>Anyone confused about players rights, feel free to read news policy on
>Space Madness.
>
>-Random
>i know, i know, let's throw all FurryMUCK tea into the bay, also


Ah, Random, your head's stuck in that backwards-looking hole again,
but it's stuck there with *style*, as always.

-- 
* My 3 rules for meeting women *
1.  Seek simple women with common sense and a capacity for commitment.
2.  Stay away from women entangled in *any* way with another man.  Apply
    the word "entangle" broadly, and don't let them fool you.
Xref: sparky rec.games.mud:9224 rec.games.mud.tiny:1314 rec.games.mud.misc:1888
From: xibo@fido.econ.arizona.edu (Mr. Coates)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:22:03 GMT
	<SCG.93Jan11074622@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Xibological Perimeter

scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin) writes:
#>Players have no rights!  None!
#
#Players have whatever rights the operators of the MUD care to grant
#them.

Not even then!  For example, a mud operator may post certain player's
rights in the greet/motd, but then may later violate them or revoke
them without notice.  And what can the player do about it?   Nothing.
Just leave.  There is no recourse, no one to fall back to, no law
courts.

A player can't go somewhere, say "Admin X violated my rights" and
expect any justice.

There is the situation where you have player-player disputes, and
the player may expect the admin or wizards to act as judge, jury,
and executioner, but it isn't right to assume that they will.  Maybe
they can't be bothered!  Maybe they don't care.  If so, you're screwed,
and you can't do a damn thing about it.


Xibo


(EVIL!)Mud fido.econ.arizona.edu 4201 [128.196.196.1] No whining pansies!
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:01:10 GMT


tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli) writes:

>	May I suggest that you may be missing the point and intent of the
>original poster of this thread - obviously, not every MUSH administration,
>or even a majority, in all likelihood, will agree to this document. However,
>some certain small percentage _will_, and if nothing else, a player who is
>on such a MUSH will know exactly what rights the administration is explicitly
>protecting.
>
>	In addition, I frankly find the "Love it or leave it," attitude
>rather simplistic. As a maintainer of a MU*, you are certainly well within
>your rights to run your MU* any way you please. However, this does not
>mean that some group of MUSH administrators (say, those that might sign
>such a document) may wish to adopt a different philosophy for their MU*s -
>not a better one, not a worse one - merely a different one.


Oh, I think there was some moral outrage expressed in the original article --
the author thinks there is a better way to run a mud.  If the intent of
the document is not to change the current situation, but merely to clarify
the policies on individual muds, that is a considerably weaker goal than
what was originally implied, but still a good idea, I agree very much.
But you're not going to change the way ethical principles (or lack of) are
applied by mud maintainers who subscribe to the views evidenced here.
You need a large swell of support from a lot of mud players to create
an impression that people will not risk their energy on muds with
irresponsible maintainers who hold the opinion they can treat people
arbitrarily because they run a mud.

-- 
* My 3 rules for meeting women *
1.  Seek simple women with common sense and a capacity for commitment.
2.  Stay away from women entangled in *any* way with another man.  Apply
    the word "entangle" broadly, and don't let them fool you.
Xref: sparky rec.games.mud:9181 rec.games.mud.tiny:1220
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny
Subject: Re: Conference on Player's Rights
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:11:36 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

player's rights? what's that? players are -guests- using someone else's
hardware. they (we. i. i'm not an admin, probably never will be) have
no rights to it at all. what players -do- have is choice. if they don't
like the way a mud is being run, they're free to leave. enough people
exercise that right & a mud quickly becomes a ghost town. it's a self-
enforcing situation that doesn't need any formalization to make happen.

go ahead tho'. at best, it won't make any difference at all. at very worse,
people who -would- have run muds decide it's not worth it to face a
bunch of players whining about their "rights" and we see a decrease in
the number of new virtual worlds to play in. :^(

jason

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:07:21 GMT


scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin) writes:

[lots of legal what-ifs]
>The same would be true if I was doing this in YOUR hotel in the room I
>rented, because when I rent a hotel room you agree not to enter it or
>otherwise invade my privacy except under certain terms (actually, most
>states force you to agree to this).  THIS is what we are talking
>about.  Note the "YOU AGREE" bit.  If you don't agree, my tough luck.
>Maybe I should go to a different hotel.
>
>Get the idea?


Mmhmm.  The idea you don't get is that none of this is motivated by
"what can get you put behind bars under the laws of this country".
Laws lag way behind their ethical counterparts.

-- 
Consider a lion, sneaking up to rip an innocent gazelle into shreds.  Is
this morally wrong, should the gazelle get a fighting chance, should we
step in and declare that gazelles have rights too?  Of course not.
                      - Felix Ortony, on why mud users don't have rights
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: tuff@ellis.uchicago.edu (Geoff Tuffli)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Reply-To: tuff@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:26:43 GMT

In article xibo@fido.econ.arizona.edu (Mr. Coates) writes:
>
>Players have no rights!  None!
>
>This debate appears from time to time because certain players feel
>wronged.  They never can see things from the administrators' (Gods?  PLEASE.)
>point of view.
>
>The admins provide a machine to run the mud on.  They frequently supply
>also the mud code, a starting db, and some even maintain the mud.  Some
>admins even act as police/judges!
>
>But this does not mean that players have any rights.  The admin can shut
>down the mud at any time, delete it, change, or even paint it blue.  To
>say otherwise would mean that some total stranger can walk onto the mud
>and claim some of the admin's hardware as his own property.  People don't
>have the right to take your car away if you give them a ride; they don't
>have the right to take your computer away if you let them mud on it.
>
>The administrator's word is FINAL.
>

	There are LEGAL rights and there are ETHICAL rights. Nobody, to my
knowledge, has ever seriously suggested that players have any legal rights
over the administrators' method of running a MU*. Ethical rights, on the
other hand, are medium independant.

	Geoff Tuffli
	The Green Griffin


Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: mho@stacken.kth.se (Magnus Holmberg)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, NADA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:24:41 GMT

In <1993Jan11.131228.18170@athena.mit.edu> fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei) writes:

	[ . . . ]

>the point where it becomes part of FAQ (ie. universally accepted). Though

	I don't think the FAQ can be said to hold much of 'universally
	acceptance', as it seems to me to be heavilly skewed towards
	the Tiny* side (ie, not much of it is relevant to a Diku:-)).

		- MH	Gimli of AlexMUD
Xref: sparky rec.games.mud:9187 rec.games.mud.tiny:1233 rec.games.mud.misc:1811
From: fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:32:18 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <XIBO.93Jan7025653@ziggy.fido.econ.arizona.edu> xibo@fido.econ.arizona.edu (Mr. Coates) writes:
>
>Players have no rights!  None!
>
>This debate appears from time to time because certain players feel
>wronged.  They never can see things from the administrators' (Gods?  PLEASE.)
>point of view.

Except in this case, at least _some_ mud admins are agreeing with the players
or else this particular thread wouldn't exist now.

>The admins provide a machine to run the mud on.  They frequently supply
>also the mud code, a starting db, and some even maintain the mud.  Some
>admins even act as police/judges!
>
>But this does not mean that players have any rights.  The admin can shut
>down the mud at any time, delete it, change, or even paint it blue.  To
[analogies deleted]
>The administrator's word is FINAL.

Definitely. Frankly, I'd be surprised if 20 mud admins/ex-admins could come to
a firm agreement on what "rights" they believe players are entitled to. But if
a large group of admins do come to an agreement, then  more power to them.
Worst that could happen? Several hours of arguing and getting nowhere. And on
the other side of the spectrum, drafting a "bill of rights" that eventually
gains acceptance to the point where it becomes a part of mud FAQ. (Though if
I'm not mistaken the person who writes up the FAQ is also a wizard of
Dreamscape, in which case the most the proponents could hope for is general
acceptance by mud admins ;) Sure the admin's word is final, but this is a case
where admins (some, at least) _want_ to establish a somewhat concrete
standard - they want to give players the rights, in writing. Hell, rather than
typing up your own set of "admin views", you just tell your mudders to refer
to the bill, maybe adding a couple of amendments or nullifying certain rights.
;) 'course the quickest thing would be just to tell the players they have no
rights, but I'd imagine it would be hard to get your mud popular that way.
(Dreamscape being the exception to this. :)

>
>
>Xibo (#1 at (EVIL!)Mud -- fido.econ.arizona.edu 4201)

Francis
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: jmorrill@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John M Morrill)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:42:03 GMT

Why do I get this feeling that there are those who would have a different
view as to why Fenris went down.

>
>    My idea is for the god/gods and wizards who run the game to make a
>policy for THEIR mud and stick with it. PERIOD.
>

The problem is must god/gods and wizards don't want to do that, as Lydia Leong
sugguest, it is far easier to make up the rules as you go along and change
them whenever you wish.

>    Unless you all allow some council to enter your mud and overwatch your
>mud there is no way any rule can ever be made to stick. Hell it is hard enough
>to watch what ever one is doing as it is.
>

No one yet has suggested this, (unless there is a post that has not gotten to
my site yet). Sounds like a red herring to me, suggest that have in order to
have some agreeement with he players that they will be treated fairly would
require that the god/gods and wizards would have to surrender their mud
automonty.

>    And for all you people who dont like or get along with the people
>who are running the mud you are on heres what you do
>
>
>    GET THE FUCK OFF THAT MUD AND FIND ONE YOU DO LIKE.
>

There you go. This is the reason I suspect there is more to the Fenris story
then you have told. Such a wonderful way of expressing a winning attiude.

>
>    David Chase   aka   Saydor
>
>
>    From some one who has seen and heard enough basing of muds and mud people.
>
>
>
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange problems call for strange solutions.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:13:43 GMT


durrell@pinball.arcade.uiowa.edu (Bryant Durrell) writes:

>In article <C0HxFy.Lz3@math.okstate.edu> russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad) writes:
>>In <1993Jan7.163218.27028@athena.mit.edu> fihsu@athena.mit.edu (Hsu I-wei) writes:
>>>Dreamscape, in which case the most the proponents could hope for is general
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>doesn't exist
>
>>>(Dreamscape being the exception to this. :)
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>doesn't exist
>
>Just goes to show how influential we dinos are these days.  <grin>
>At least we still make Jim Miller paranoid...
>
>(oh yeah?  well, i remember when dirque wasn't a studmuffin!)


teehee Bryant.  SpaceMadness dinos still overestimate their
self-importance, what else is new.

-- 
* My 3 rules for meeting women *
1.  Seek simple women with common sense and a capacity for commitment.
2.  Stay away from women entangled in *any* way with another man.  Apply
    the word "entangle" broadly, and don't let them fool you.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
From: snarflrd@leland.Stanford.EDU (NM156)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 17:33:07 GMT

In article <XIBO.93Jan7025653@ziggy.fido.econ.arizona.edu> xibo@fido.econ.arizona.edu (Mr. Coates) writes:
>Players have no rights!  None!

of course not ... no more than RL humans have 'rights'.  If they were truly
rights, they couldn't be taken away, could they?

i think it would be useful to provide a specific code of PRIVILEGES that
you can expect to have on any MU* that publicly claims to adhere to the code,
as well as specific minimal and maximal penalties for violating another's
privileges.

it's purely supply-and-demand:  many people (me included) want to have
certain privileges explicitly available to us on the MU* we choose to play on,
if we can just look and see whether the place subscribes to the Singlenesia
convention at login time, it will save a lot of effort on our part.

Could i suggest shifting the discussion from who gets to come to 'what should
preliminary drafts have on it'
to start debate, i'd like to propose something of the following format:

1)  A Player on this MU* has the right to private communication with another
    player.  Players have the right to know when others are receiving what
    they type, either explicitly (a message like:  'trauma is listening to
    you') or implicitly (a sign saying: 'Public broadcast room')
      Penalty for violation:
        by players:  MIN:  informing all parties involved, if incident was
                           accidental/from ignorance
                     MAX:  removal from MU* [permanent], posting name to net.
        by wizards:  MIN:  de-wizzing.
                     MAX:  same as for players.

2)  A Player on this MU* has the same rights and potential as any other player.
    Any player should be able to rise to the level of any other given time
    and effort.  Nepotism is bad.
      Penalty for violation:
...etc...

i'm sure the specifics above are going to be controvercial, but the concept
is sound:  a base level of treatment that one can expect from the MU*, if
it publicly claims to subscribe to the convention.
May i suggest that someone draw up such a prelimnary draft BEFORE the meeting,
so we can debate the specifics there?  (writing something from scratch in a
committee is a logical impossibility.)

traumahound.



-- 
Ingredients: chopped pork shoulder with ham, salt, water, sugar, sodium
             nitrate, snarflrd@leland.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad)
Subject: Re: User Rights Camps
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:31:30 GMT

In <1993Jan11.180821.3214@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:

>     Everyone keep in mind, regardless of your faction, that eventually some 
>sort of laws will be passed to regulate muds.  And if we have our own set of 
>guidelines already prepared we are more likely to have those passed into law, 
>or even have the law stalled for a while by our self-policing.  Remember tha 
>Comics Code.  It kept laws from being passed by the government during a 
>restrictive period, so that it would be easier to come out of the restrictions 
>when things loosened up.  It is quite probable that there will be a crackdown 
>on BBSes and muds in the neat future, and those that will not police 
>themselves will be policed by the government, which has little sense of humor.
>     So, if you don't want any restrictions now, don't whine when the axe
>falls.  It may not fall soon, but it will fall, and those who wore the stiff 
>collars for a few years in anticipation may find that although they may be a 
>bit uncomfortable they deflect axe blades nicely.

Methinks you miss a critical point.

SOME of us...okay, I personally, and I'm sure Xibo and others agree...will not
put up with lawyers babbling about our muds.  Down it would go.  I HAVE a job,
mister, and it's not providing a MUD service under regulation.

-Random
Doom and gloom THAT.

-- 
---------------------===Comedy!  Sudden, violent comedy!===--------------------
Russ Smith -- russ@math.okstate.edu  |  "This is the Nineties, Bubba, and
  Don Random of the "Random Gang"    |   there is no such thing as Paranoia.
What a pinhead! Does he not fear us? |   It's all true." -- Hunter S Thompson
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: Privacy Guarantees
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:13:04 GMT

dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:

>In fact, they can do about anything they want to you as long as they
>don't listen to your conversations.

Actually, they can listen to your conversations, too.  They're allowed
to listen in to check 'conformance with quality standards'.  They
can't divulge the nature of any conversation overheard thusly, except
in the case of an emergency.

--
There is no USENET death penalty. John Palmer's continued presence among us is
proof of that.
		-- Evan Leibovitch (evan@telly.on.ca), in news.groups
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: jive@spanky.ssc.gov (Jim Ivey)
Subject: Coding question - TinyMush 2.0.8 patchlevel 10 #1
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
Distribution: rec.games.mud.tiny
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:49:57 GMT


     If this is the wrong place to ask coding questions, please say so and
tell me where to send these next time.  In the meantime, while I'm already
wasting bandwidth.. :)

     Question pertains to MONITOR, ^-listens and parenting.  I got the
impression, from a few snippets of information that I found in various
documentation and on-line help/news, that ^-listens in parent objects would
be searched.  Unfortunately, when I tried this I couldn't get it to work.
Should it work?  If not, is this something to be added to TM?

     Thanks for your time.. included is a snippet of code to test it with.

     Jamie

--------------------------------------------------

     @create Parent
     @set Parent=MONITOR
     &MON-TEST Parent=^test:@emit name(me) - *Ping*

     @create Child
     @parent Child=Parent
     @set Child=MONITOR

     When I posed 'test', only the Parent emitted the *Ping*.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny,news.admin.policy,rec.humor,alt.fan.furry