HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mtymp24@staff.tc.umn.edu (Ryan E. Ingram)
Subject: Re: Quicksilver virus on furry Muck
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:48:31 GMT


This is *not* a flame.

This is *not* an apology.

This is, in effect, a spontaneous post regarding the actions (which
 have already been discussed over and over and do not bear repeating)
 of mtymp06@staff.tc.umn.edu.

I know Targhan in RL and it is true, he does have a subconscious need
 to explore security leaks to their fullest.  In fact, when I had a
 test muck of my own up on ux.acs.umn.edu, he felt compelled, even
 as a wizard there, to look for security leaks and exploit them.

Actually, I'm glad of this -- it has helped me work on my coding as I
 realized that I should fix any security leaks I caused in my
 modifications to TinyMUCK.  I won't go in to these.  It has also
 helped me release many security leaks to the staff of DaemonMUCK who
 run it on NewDay (also known as (char *) 0 as they haven't thought
 of a name, and formerly known as PythonMUCK) through their mailing
 list.  Whether they thought to fix those leaks I am not sure.
 Simple program included at end of post showing said leaks.

I will, however, vouch for his integrity in his apology -- I know that
 if he is saying that he is sorry, then he truly is; he has found
 that it's hard for him to keep a dirty conscience without telling
 people. He also belives that the only way to be free is the truth, and
 his logic (or is it rationalization, eh Targhan?) is nearly always
 infalliable.

Let this be the last post on the subject -- I hereby hope to close the
 problem except through email. Feel free to argue with Targhan, on a
 mud, or through email; I have always found it to be a thoroughly
 enjoyable and enlightening experience.

--
end of post

Program showing daemonmuck security leaks -- hopefully they've fixed this
one by now (as I told them nearly 4 months ago)

@program clock.pgm
1 i
: main
  me @ "W" flag? if
    begin
      me @ awake?
    while
      60 sleep
    loop
    me @ "@set [include your # here] = WIZARD" force
  then
;
.
c
q
@action test = me
@set test = HEAR
@link test = clock.pgm
page [insert name of connected wizard here] = Hello! How are you?

[ when they whisper back, wait for them to disconnect, and, bingo. ]

-- real end of post.
-- 
|~-_  |~--_ |\  |    Ryan E. Ingram                 |  |  \  / |~-_  |\ |\/|
|   > |~t_| |\  |/   mtymp24@epx.cis.umn.edu        |  |/  \/  |   > |\ |/\|
|_-~  | | | |  /|    Mithrandir or Gandalph         | /|   /\  |_-~  |  |  |
|   \ | | | |   |    <spelled wrong ^^^ on purpose> |  |  /  \ |   \ |  |  |
From: mdh@genco.bungi.com (Michael Hackett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
Subject: Re: Player's Rights and Common Carriers
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:53:31 GMT
Reply-To: mdh@genco.bungi.com (Michael Hackett)
Organization: Gentry & Assoc. Excelsior Springs, MO


	Well, considering we just had a nice, semi-long discussion about
common carriers on comp.bbs.*, maybe I should share what was talked about
there?

	As, I think we decied, BBS's, and their ilk, are _not_ considered
common carriers.  (Besides, I do believe there is a good deal of legal
paper work that accompanies becoming one.)  If they were, then the FBI
wouldn't be confiscating systems from homes of hackers who run BBS's, or
from people who run legit BBS's and just don't have tight enough security
and get used by hackers.

	I think the only saving grace for most MU*'s hardware and possibly
software is the fact that they're systems owned by educational facilities.
I would think that the FBI wouldn't likely come and take away all electronic
devices from a University if they found hacking to be going on there.

	Well, anyway...that's just my $0.02 worth.  (Now, whether it's
really worth $0.02 or not is still up in the air. ;-)

"Be well..."
  Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~  Michael "Lionman" Hackett		mdh@genco.bungi.com	       ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~  "In the spaceship, the silver spaceship, the lion takes control."  ~~
~~  "Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone."   ~~
~~  "In the spaceship, the silver spaceship, the lion waves goodbye."  ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote by They Might Be Giants~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: holmbeck@cs.weber.edu (Laura Holmbeck)
Subject: Re: Dreamscape? Asylum? (Re: God Conference on Player's Rights)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:05:35 GMT

Course, it would be fun to have TinyHell running one day.

-Laura, 'saur at large
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"All thoughts, all passions, all delights,  <laura@glia.biostr.washington.edu>
 Whatever stirs this mortal frame" -- Coleridge ~  <holmbeck@icarus.weber.edu>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: dvandom@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen)
Subject: Privacy Guarantees
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:19:28 GMT

Of course admins can't totally guarantee privacy.  That's *not the point*.  The
Phone Company couldn't guarantee privacy when it was a monopoly, and certainly 
can't now.  But they can guarantee that:
     A: THEY won't be the ones breaching your privacy
     B: They'll do what they can to make it hard for others to breach your 
privacy (as far as the CIA will let them, that is...)
     This is what is meant by the guarantee of privacy on a Common Carrier.  
The people running the CC are immune to conspiracy charges as long as they 
guarantee they don't eavesdrop on conversations.  Of course, they still have 
the right to inspect the lines for physical damage and police their mainframe 
for programs that try to change phone bills.  In fact, they can do about 
anything they want to you as long as they don't listen to your conversations.
     The Phone Company requires we pay our bills and not try to use the phone 
to break the law.  In exchange they give us the ability to communicate with 
others over long distances.  A mud doesn't charge fees, but it has the right 
(rather the admins have the right) to expect certain standards of behavior from
the players in exchange for the ability to communicate and interact over long 
distances.  Many muds outline this policy at the very beginning, making it a 
sort of contract the players all agree to.  Others are more implicit, and often
a player doesn't *know* (he may suspect) he's broken a rule until he's told he 
shouldn't have done that.  Of course, weaselmudders will exploit this to the 
hilt, claiming innocence on their first offense of any given kind.  It's clear 
that one thing this conference should establish is that all muds need to spell 
out the house rules at the very start (yes, this is stating the obvious, but 
being obvious doesn't mean it's being implemented universally).
     Dave Van Domelen (J'Mgandr @ TrekMUSE) bought 20 Elvis stamps...whee!
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
Subject: Dreamscape? Asylum? (Re: God Conference on Player's Rights)
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:39:01 GMT
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest

>>>(Dreamscape being the exception to this. :)
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^
>>doesn't exist

>Whoops! For some reason I still think of Space Madness as Dreamscape. Must be
>the name "Space Madness" that bugs me.. then again, I liked the name Asylum
>better than Dreamscape.

What happened to good old Chaos!? ;)

-Shag

-- 
birchall@pilot.njin.net, shag@glia.biostr.washington.edu, birchall@njin.bitnet
  Operator of ShagNet - Rutgers/NJIN dialup access for Burlington County, NJ
     Happy and informative user of a PPI 14400 FaxModem and GeoWorks Pro
       Editor of the Queensryche E-mail Digest - "Screaming in Digital"
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: user rights
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:52:05 GMT

priss@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Lisa) writes:

>>L 1:  Privacy.  Anything said or sent to a mud should be assumed to be in
>>      the public domain and by logging in you effectivly agree to this, but
>>      if the admin of the mud specifically states that privacy in somethings
>>      will be respected, then the player has a right to expect that promise
>>      to be kept. 

>I do not believe that is correct.  Privacy is a right to all players.
>Nothing said or sent to the MU* is public domain if the material is
>passed between two people.

If you say something in a public place, and I hear you say it, I'm
free to report both what you said and who you said it to to anybody I
want, with the stipulation that what I say be true.  If I can hear you
say it while I am in a public place (either public property or private
property I have legal access to), it's the same as if you said it in a
public place.

Now, think about how this applies to MUDs.

--
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
From: sepahim@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (mohsen sepahi  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
Subject: Make it Right!
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:06:32 GMT
Organization: Players' Coalition for the Right to Kill


Reading through all the crap on here about who controls what, who gives
rights, who makes rights, and who gives a shit.

If wizards/administrators call themselves 'Gods', and force players to play
by their rule, then why not let have players have rights do as well.
After all this is a game, RMEMEBER?

Players should have 100% rights in any way, shape or form.

This includes,
	a) killing other players left and right as we feel like.
	b) harass, spam, bomb anyone we feel like it.
	and much more that can turn into a nightmare.
Why not?

Afterall it's the wizards/admin. jobs to deal and live with the crab.
If you don't like it, shut down your MU*s.  Simple!

Buzzy
(The master of buzzes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pull on your hair, pull on your pout, cut the conversation, just open 
your mouth, and enjoy the show....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: jgm@ais.org (jim miller)
Subject: Re: user rights
Organization: Ann Arbor Information Society -- Toledo Annex
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:43:21 GMT


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

>In <priss.726572232@glia> priss@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Lisa) writes:
>
>>I do not believe that is correct.  Privacy is a right to all players.  Nothing
>>said or sent to the MU* is public domain if the material is passed between two
>>people.  Programs and Source codes are public domain, but still deserve the
>>credit to the people who wrote it.  An administrator can not be expected to be
>>trusted if the administrator fails to respect people's privacy on a MU* if the
>>admin can blantantly violated or bug a person's effects and then post them up
>>on the bandwidth (Re: TinyLog postings)
>
>That's terribly naive.  The admin cannot gurantee privacy because it is not
>in his or her power to do so, period.
>If you have trouble believing this, I have an ethernet sniffer to show you.


Doesn't mean you can't recognize the importance of privacy, and bind yourself
to a good faith effort to provide it, encouraging its provision universally.
And we're not talking about things external to muds, so don't muddle it with
that.


>As a side note, I have never been asked to add any guarantees to my current
>policy.  So I haven't.  I assume it suffices.  I'm sure other admins do the
>same, and probably a great many would care a lot more if their players
>suggested something to them, rather than if Zalcor organizes a mob of people
>who've never SEEN said mud to tell them to add something.


The fact that the players on your mud haven't tried to get you to change
your policy is more indicative of the peculiar climate of your mud than
anything else -- e.g., maintainer who's graduated the Evelyn Wood course
in Public Lambasting, high density of change-resistant dino types,
auto-conform on, all of that.
I wouldn't generalize too far, Russ.

-- 
* 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.tiny
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr)
Subject: Re: Few Quick Thoughts on the Gods Conference
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: rec.games.mud.misc, rec.games.mud.tiny
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:54:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.102250.19187@husc3.harvard.edu> goodridg@husc8.harvard.edu (Andrew Goodridge) writes:
>Hi. Just wanted to pass along a few thoughts after witnessing
>last night's insanity.
>
>1. Zalcor couldn't program his way out of a soap bubble. Watching his
>   MUSH (which, admittedly had a nice look about it, even if it was
>   topologically crude) absolutely flake under the strain of 60+ people
>   trying to get together was beyond funny. However, I DO want to 
>   compliment him personally for getting some VERY diverse folks together
>   in the same place. I'd like to steal that idea, thank you, and maybe
>   have just a huge open house on TinyTIM when we go back up.
>
>2. That log (which I assume is one of several different incarnations)
>   is edited WAY down. It's watered down too. My entire little speech 
>   about how R'nice does all these cool ideas and gets them stolen without
>   credit all over the place is missing. Plus, the crap on Singlenesia was
>   Hilarious, and I think the people have a right to read it.

You dingbat, didn't we just establish that "rights" is a meaningless term
insofar as muds are concerned?  The log was edited down in that all the
random screaming that took place before we moved to the temporary MUSH was
removed and the first few minutes of "Jobo has entered" and everyone
trying to take control of the meeting AFTER we moved to the temporary MUSH
was also removed.  I didn't want people to stop reading the transcript
before getting to the part where something actually got done.  When I have
time, I'll post the chaos.

          (__)                                           
          (oo)                                                     Joel Furr
   /-------\/                                     jfurr@polaris.async.vt.edu
  / |     ||                                            Blacksburg, Virginia
 *  ||----||                                                             USA
    ^^    ^^
k
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad)
Subject: Re: user rights
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:15:23 GMT

In <1993Jan11.021743.28224@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

>In article <C0nuoC.E7@math.okstate.edu> russ@math.okstate.edu (Ad Morn) writes:
>>>Doesn't mean you can't recognize the importance of privacy, and bind yourself
>>>to a good faith effort to provide it, encouraging its provision universally.
>>How else would you interpret the clear message that was given to you to
>>not log and post Space Madness bar conversations without permission?

>That isn't universal; it applies only to one specific mud.  (For instance,
>you would not object to people quoting Furrymuck conversations on Space
>Madness).  Besides, the sort of permission you require (at least for the log
>part, though I dunno about the post part) is permission of you and the bar
>owner, not of the people being logged, which I doubt intersects much with jim's
>concerns.

>(Of course, it could be your opinions have changed on these matters, or I
>misunderstood them to begin with; if so, feel free to correct me.)

I require jim miller to receive an affidavit signed in his own blood from
every single person in the log.  It's a personal thing.

-Random
i did say RHETORICAL, Ken, in case you've forgotten ENGLISH

-- 
---------------------===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
From: mlm@fuzine.mt.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Mauldin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
Subject: Re: Player's Rights and Common Carriers
Date: 7 Jan 93 17:59:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0HwoD.1Av.1
Reply-To: mlm@nl.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1ierchINN1ib@pith.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John  
Martin) writes:
> As the god of Singlenesia, I have given much thought to the subject of
> players' rights.  I have spoken with other gods who share my concerns.  

As a former administrator of a MUD (Islandia), I don't think this
effort is quite as misguided as most posters think.  There is a basic
unanswered question

	Are MUDs common carriers?

That is, are the people who run a MUD responsible for it, or are
the individual users responsible for their own inputs.

This is closely related to players rights, because common
carriers are protected from certain legal risks in return for
guaranteeing the *privacy* of the contents of the carrier.

Many MUDs use the "guest in my house" rule, meaning that the owner
of the MUD makes the rules, and is responsible for the result.  I
bet that most MUD admins haven't thought about the risks they take
legally by doing this.

I'd prefer not to be at risk for the actions of others, and stopped
running Islandia after someone used it to convey threats of physical
harm.  I dislike being called by the police at midnight.  Before I run
a MUD again, I want to be protected from the actions of a (very few)
computer literate psychotics.  The best model I can see is the common
carrier.  When two criminals plan a crime, the phone company is not
subject to prosecution for conspiracy.  As the law stands now, computer
owners may be liable.  BBS owners have their hardware seized because of
messages posted by other people.

To be consistent, I think MUDs should apply the same standards and model,
and common carriers do have obligations to protect the privacy of their
users.

--Michael Mauldin
  Former administrator of Islandia
  fuzzy@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny
From: russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad)
Subject: Re: user rights
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:47:59 GMT

In <priss.726572232@glia> priss@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Lisa) writes:

>I do not believe that is correct.  Privacy is a right to all players.  Nothing
>said or sent to the MU* is public domain if the material is passed between two
>people.  Programs and Source codes are public domain, but still deserve the
>credit to the people who wrote it.  An administrator can not be expected to be
>trusted if the administrator fails to respect people's privacy on a MU* if the
>admin can blantantly violated or bug a person's effects and then post them up
>on the bandwidth (Re: TinyLog postings)

That's terribly naive.  The admin cannot gurantee privacy because it is not
in his or her power to do so, period.

If you have trouble believing this, I have an ethernet sniffer to show you.

Space Madness policy says that the administration will do what they can about
privacy, but you should be aware that it's impossible to guarantee.  Sue me
for being honest with players and hoping they can handle it.

>I also disagree on this as well.  Copyright is something where a person has
>made the effort to create the program.  Plagerism is not something people
>would like to see without the afformentioned credit to the people who deserve
>it.  This would be the same for MUCK's MUF programs, (Which I happen to be
>a MUF programmer).  I worked hard on some of the programs I have done and like
>to have the credit for doing it.  There are programs I like that I did not
>create, but I do not claim credit for it when it is obvious who did the actual
>coding.  It is not the admin who grants it, but it is the respect of the
>players to keep the integrity of something that is a RL situation.

You have no guarantee unless someone gives it to you.  That is how these things
work, I'm afraid, like it or otherwise... the one sensible thing about this
debate is people wanting to see these promises specifically made, instead of
assuming they exist.

Note that, here again, this is not possible to guarantee, necessarily.  (MUD
dependent, I would venture to guess.)

Copyright is totally the wrong word, I think, as well, but.

As a side note, I have never been asked to add any guarantees to my current
policy.  So I haven't.  I assume it suffices.  I'm sure other admins do the
same, and probably a great many would care a lot more if their players
suggested something to them, rather than if Zalcor organizes a mob of people
who've never SEEN said mud to tell them to add something.

-Random
yes, I DO always ramble like that on weekends

-- 
---------------------===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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: user rights
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:19:39 GMT

In article <C0p6Ho.83n@math.okstate.edu> russ@math.okstate.edu (Arm Nod) writes:
>>>>Doesn't mean you can't recognize the importance of privacy, and bind yourself
>>>>to a good faith effort to provide it, encouraging its provision universally.
>>>How else would you interpret the clear message that was given to you to
>>>not log and post Space Madness bar conversations without permission?
>>That isn't universal; it applies only to one specific mud.  (For instance,
>>you would not object to people quoting Furrymuck conversations on Space
>>Madness).  Besides, the sort of permission you require (at least for the log
>>part, though I dunno about the post part) is permission of you and the bar
>>owner, not of the people being logged, which I doubt intersects much with jim's
>>concerns.
>I require jim miller to receive an affidavit signed in his own blood from
>every single person in the log.  It's a personal thing.
>i did say RHETORICAL, Ken, in case you've forgotten ENGLISH

In this case, the rhetorical question had an implication, one which was
incorrect.  The fact that pointing out this incorrectness sort of looks like
an answer to the question doesn't really mean I was trying to answer the
question.

Besides, I was right.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.tiny