From: dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:22:46 GMT

(entering all-caps mode, brace yerself)

RIGHTS DERIVE ULTIMATELY FROM RESPONSIBILITIES.

That said, it follows that those with the responsibilities of maintaining a 
game or system have more rights within that system than those who contribute 
nothing.  However, we have to see that MU*s are not totally divorced from 
reality...real people can and do play them.  That leads to point two:

REAL WORLD RIGHTS DO NOT CEASE UPON ENTERING A VIRTUAL WORLD.

At least not *entirely*.  Consider a corporate building.  No matter how heavy 
handed the company is, they cannot deprive you of your constitutional rights 
(well, they can and do, but most get caught) even if you are on their property.
 They can kick you out, tell you where you can and can't smoke or eat, and 
enforece a dress code.  But they cannot torture you, kill you or otherwise do 
something you cannot escape by simply leaving.  I suppose that is the dividing 
line between what companies can do and not do to people's rights.  If the 
effects can be avoided by leaving the grounds (or the job) without 
repercussions, it's usually okay (yes, there are exceptions, but bear with me, 
I'm formulating alot of this as I go).  You can smoke outside.  You can take 
off the suit outside (well, change the suit to more comfotable clothes...nudity
would be frowned on).  You can eat outside.  But if you are forced by contract 
to suffer emotional scarring or endure humilation or sexual harrassment, you 
can sue or even bring criminal charges.  If the violation of rights carries 
beyond the walls of the building, it may be examined for violation of law.  If 
it vanishes after you leave, or leaves little residue, it is legal or not 
illegal enough to waste time on.
     Violation of privacy definitely carries beyond company bounds, but is only
actionable if it is not agreed to in advance and without coercion by the 
subject.  You give permission for a background check, you don't give permission
to have your mail opened or your handbag searched while you are out of the 
office in another part of the building.
     In muds, violation of privacy is probably the biggest potential problem.  
Also there is Dismissal Without Cause and Harrassment, sexual or otherwise.  
Not much else save really minor things.
     Violation of Privacy: Two major sources are logs and abuse of Wiz power.  
Logs are effectively and functionally wiretaps, only harder to detect when in 
use by the victims, and should be treated exactly the same.  All parties must 
be notified in advance, and can "hang up" if they don't wish to be recorded.  
However, note that if the person refusing logs is the defendant in an In 
Character trial, he will not get to defend himself unless agreeing to have his 
words entered in the official transcript (this is an attempt to close a weasel 
hole).  Wiz abuse is harder to answer, since it takes many forms.  Alot of 
current muds use a sort of implied consent, wherein the players tacitly agree 
to have things examined for DB purposes.  A formalization of this consent would
be a good idea, as well as a "Private" flag that can be set to block Wiz 
examines.  I'd suggest only one Private flag per player, and they should unset 
it if asked by the Directors.  Or perhaps it only blocks wizzes, not directors.
 Since directors (gods) are the actual controllers of the game, they should be 
able to see all.  But many games have wizzes that are considerably less endowed
with responsibility.
     Dismissal Without Cause:  Actually, this isn't really a problem.  However,
there is Dismissal Without Cause That Is Good Enough To Satisfy The Player.  
Face it, players don't have tenure.  In Real Life you can be fired with no 
reason from most jobs.  Why should Joe Player have a guarantee in a game that 
few have in the real world?  Of course, Tenure could be a reward for taking on 
responsibility, but then, players who take responsibility on their shoulders 
are rarely kicked out, and if they are it is usually with Damn Good Cause.  
There are a few cases I know of that slip between the cracks here, where 
personality conflicts cause someone to be @nuked/@toaded/@slaved/@whatever.  
But that almost belongs more under harrassment.
     Harrassment: Okay, there are two issues here.  What to do with players 
that harass other players, and how to prevent wizzes and gods from maltreating 
those they have personality conflicts with.  I'd say that if you have problems 
with harassment (sexual or stalking), get the real name of the offender and 
tell them to stop it or the victim will be given their name and the option to 
press charges.  After all, even though I am verry worried about the trends 
toward every gesture being interpreted as Sexual Harassment, there are some 
clear cases out there, and they should be dealt with.  In general, requiring 
real names of all players is a good idea anyway, especially on muds with 
security problems.  This may sound fascist, but some people should not be 
allowed to run around loose in muds.  Not to say that this be used as a method 
of blackballing undesirables, but rather as a deterrent.  Anonymity is a 
wonderful shield for vandals, and if they don't have it they won't be as likely
to crash muds and release viruses.  Of course, harassment may not be a big 
enough problem to take such strong measures, but it is illegal, whether over 
phone, mud or in person.
     Well, I've rambled on long enough.  Players have rights they bring with 
them from real life, but don't have all of those rights.
     Dave Van Domelen, didn't plan to spend this much time on this....