From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: God Conference on Player's Rights
Followup-To: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc
Keywords: dream on
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 21:51:23 GMT

johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu (John Martin) writes:
>gregb@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Snooze) writes:
>
>>*laughs*
>>Players have rights? Since when?
>
>This statement demonstrates the very need for the conference. Before I
>launch into this, though, I'd like to answer the question. The immediate,
>and too-narrow answer is that in Singlenesia at least, and I suspect on
>other muds as well, players have had rights since it opened to the public.
>
>The real answer to the question is they always have had rights. The
>question that needs to be asked is "When will these rights stop being
>violated?"

So this "conference" that you're busy mewling about is nothing more than
a front for the mistaken belief that players are anything more than guests
in someone else's area?  Instead of cloaking it in the language of the
concerned administrator, why don't you just go ahead and post a whiny note,
like Ken or Auzzie?  It'll make you feel better.

The real answer to Snooze's question is, quite a bit more realistically,
that they have no rights except for those explicitly granted by the wizards
of their mud (and not by, for instance, the wizard of Singlenesia.)  The idea
that rights are being violated on muds where they haven't been granted is
extremely nonsensical.  If you walk into my house -- even if I've left the
door open -- and start pretending to be a small furry creature, then I can
blow you up with TNT whenever I want.  I can tell the neighbors about you.
I can even, using my freedom of speech, tell over 3 million people about you.

>I am speaking of basic human rights here. The right to privacy is probably
>the #1 issue as far as muds are concerned. The right to hold private
>conversation, to not be spied upon, and to not have personal information
>revealed against the player's wishes. There are, of course, many others,
>such as the right to be free from harrassment, the right to speak ones mind,
>etc.

One does not scream "right to privacy" when one holds a conversation in front
of a thousand microphones in Grand Central Station.  You have a right to 
privacy in your own home.  If you mistakenly believe that a command called
"whisper" means that text so transmitted is encrypted, then you have a
fundamental problem with comprehension of mudding.

If you want secure communications, it's really simple to write a PGP wrapper
around tinytalk.  God is it simple.  I'll even give one to you, if you pay
me going rates for my time.

>Let me clarify some points made by earlier postings. A player does *not*
>have the "right" to play on a mud. This is indeed a privelege. A player
>does *not* have the right to violate other players.

And the wizard of Singlenesia does *not* have the right to define the word
"violation" to fit his particular needs.

>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?

Well, for one thing, hotels cost lots of real money.  I will guarantee
privacy to you for $100 a night, if you want to go real life like that.

>The point of the conference is not to generate reams of "laws" that gods
>must obey. The point is to generate a statement from as many gods as
>agree, as to what rights they consider to be sacred. The reason this is
>a GoodThing is that it will allow players to have some information with
>which to excersize their one, single, inviolable, indisputable right.
>To leave. Players will have some indication as to what worlds they
>can expect to be treated well on. They also have some indication as to
>what a number of gods consider to be reasonable expectations for what
>rights will be protected.

It's a functional idea, but it's encased in complete WrongThink.  Rights
do not exist until bestowed -- USENET, and muds, are not democracies.  I
don't mind the idea so much of a list of muds that promise to be goody-
goody -- but I'm anticipating a whole ton of really stupid postings on
the order of "my rights have been violated on mud X" now.

>Now muds are rather unique, in that on each mud is a handful of people
>who have the power to violate other people's rights wholesale. It's
>very, very easy to do, even without thinking of it. Probably most, if
>not all, gods and wizards have done this at some time or another in
>the course of their jobs. I know I have. However, the *ability* to spy,
>or to otherwise harrass and violate players, does not mean that doing
>so is *right*. It is still a violation. Cops have guns, and can kill
>you, but this does not give them the right to use the guns in any
>situation they choose.

Cops are members of a democracy, paid by people.  You've been spoiled by
one or two philosophy courses and a lifetime in the West, son.  To 
compare muds, an anarchy, to America, a republic, is a bit doubtful.  Try
muds, an anarchy, compared with Somalia, an anarchy.  Do the thugs riding
around with guns have the right to steal food?  Sure they do!  They've got
guns!  Think about it.  Perhaps in an idealistic sort of sense, they have
no moral right to do so, but it's useless, futile and patronizing to try
to impose our moral thought on other beings.

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.

>This conference is meant to, in effect, provide a consensus view as
>to what uses of god and wizard powers are acceptable, and what uses
>aren't.

Actually, it's a bully pulpit, if any of your postings are an indication.
Better luck next time.  I'm gonna refuse to play on any mud on the list.

>-- 
>John Martin                                        johnm@cajal.uoregon.edu
>Institute of Neuroscience,   University of Oregon,    Eugene, OR,    97402


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Sebastian Gallo                              rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud,rec.games.mud.tiny,rec.games.mud.misc