From: russ@math.okstate.edu (R. Nomad)
Subject: Re: Conference on Admin Ethics (WAS: Conf. on Player's Rights)
Organization: Aggie? What precisely is an Aggie?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:52:29 GMT

In <1ij5udINNk1t@pith.uoregon.edu> johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:

>Notice that I'm calling the conference something else now! The term
>"rights" was both ambiguous and emotionally loaded. This immediately
>became obvious both in private e-mail I have recieved and through posts
>on these newsgroups.  It also failed to accurately reflect the purpose
>of the conference.  Thus the new name. The goals remain the same hoever.

That's right.  According to your posts, I believe, the goals are to
determine what admins are ethical.  IE, those that play ball with you.

Uh, that'd be a feh, John.  Feh.

>I do *not* intend for this conference to produce any type of
>binding document, or lawbook, that mud admins would be required to
>obey.  It is not intended to be enforceable, or to delineate crimes
>and appropriate punishments.  This would be an impossible task.
>Law and enforcement remain the concern of individual administrators.

That's big of you.

>What I do intend is to produce a statement generated by as many
>admins as are willing.  The document would specify the ethical
>responsibilites of mud admins.

No.

Wrong.

It would specify the ethical claims that the signatory mud admins have
made.  It would mean bupkis about the ethical responsibilities of people
who dont' care what John Martin thinks, can't make it, don't even read
the damned newsgroup, or any number of other things.

Face facts, guys.  You're not setting global policy.  Things are Just
That Way.

>The admins will sign the document,
>as a show of agreement to the contents of the statement. In effect,
>this becomes a promise from those admins. This is *not* meant to
>be a contract, however, merely a statement of intent. The purpose
>of this statement is to provide some solid information to players,
>about various admins' attitudes and policies.  This knowledge will
>enable the players to make an informed choice among worlds. A
>secondary purpose is to provide an ethical guide to current and
>future admins. A guide such as this would prevent the need to make
>up the rules as they go along, and would provide stability and
>consistency in the worlds whose admins accept this document.

I still feel you would like everyone to believe that it means the rest
of the shmoes are under chaos and travesties beyond belief.  Very pompous
of you, John, very pompous indeed.

Why you cannot simply state a subset of the above -- that is, that
you want an agreement that can be copied by other admins if they
want a simple and logical policy -- without ANY of this other garbage
about "Well, other people can attach complaints SO THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE
SCUM" and other stuff is beyond me.

Let us regain a sense of perspective, shall we?

-Random
not coming near this puppy until there's a little rational thought on
what it's supposed to be

-- 
---------------------===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