From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Distribution: rec.games.mud, rec.games.mud.lp, rec.games.mud.misc
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:39:15 GMT


kinsman@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Aphoriel/Kinsman) writes:

>In article <C0G1wF.74M@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> msjle@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Joi L. Ellis) writes:
>>Why are you EXCLUDING the PLAYERS!?  THEY are the ones who are directly
>>affected by any policy decisions you make.  Who do you think you are to
>>exlude the very people you are directly affecting?  This is like a bunch
>>of whites getting together to dicide what rights they're going to allow
>>the minorities to have.  
>>
>>I hope I never find  myself on one of your muds!

>As creators and administrators of their MUD, they are the ones in charge and
>do in fact have the right to determine the rights of players. (I believe 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Raistlin of Darker Realms has some good points about this a few days ago.)


The underlined text is ridiculous.  "Gods", self-gratifyingly named to
begin with, are no more ethically gifted than any other mud user.  They
are just the people who maintain the mud.  If you're not arguing from
this standpoint, and instead claiming that because they are the maintainers,
their opinions and decisions have more weight in drafting this so-called
players' bill of rights....this devolves into the "it's my mud, you will
follow my rules here" axiom that we have been oh so blessed with
reading in this fine forum many a time.  It would take great pomposity
to apply that argument to this project.

This is supposed to be a universal statement of ethical policy?  Everyone
who wants to must have an equal voice.  Mud maintainers have not been
endowed with the right to be our delegates in this matter, just because
they ftp'ed some files and let us access some ports on their machines.

>We are not being excluded.  If you wish to make some points about the rights
>of players, go to the gods and wizards of your specific mud, as he suggests.
>
>Your comments seem to imply you consider MUD players to be somehow 'oppressed'.
>This is not quite true.  The conference is not here to semi-liberate chained
>players, but rather to take the priveliges (sp?) players have been given and
>make rulings to lock and secure them so that players can claim that their
>vr characters are being violated without fear of being merely dismissed.
>
>I do have a suggestion, though.  Points may come up during the conference
>which I might wish to comment on, those points not having been made during
>personal conversations with my own gods and wizards.  Would it not be
>simple and inobtrusive programming to give each of the (likely numerous)
>spectators a like/dislike buzzer?  This would likely give the conference    
>at atmosphere similar to the French Revolution (angry roaring crowds drowning
>out the elegant positings of the aristocracy and all that) but this archaic
>from of democracy would likely be better that sitting in the spectator room
>and hoping to God the wizards aren't really going to go through with what
>they're chatting about in there...


I have a better suggestion.  Let the Usenet mud* groups be the forum
in which these issues are discussed.  No one is accorded any more
power than anyone else, everyone can be heard, and eventually, through
a process similar to the formation of a new newsgroup, some statement
can be drawn up and discussed.

-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.