<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 --> <!--X-Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun --> <!--X-From-R13: "Xba O. Znzoreg" <wyflfvapNvk.argpbz.pbz> --> <!--X-Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 00:38:44 -0700 --> <!--X-Message-Id: 199808050735.CAA24416@dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com --> <!--X-Content-Type: text/plain --> <!--X-Reference: jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com --> <!--X-Reference: 199807100545.AAA05175@dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com --> <!--X-Reference: 199808032052.NAA01357#under,engr.sgi.com --> <!--X-Head-End--> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <html> <head> <title>MUD-Dev message, [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</title> <!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" --> <link rev="made" href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com"> </head> <body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000"> <font size="+4" color="#804040"> <strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong> </font> <br> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] <br clear=all><hr> <!--X-Body-Begin--> <!--X-User-Header--> <!--X-User-Header-End--> <!--X-TopPNI--> Date: [ <a href="msg00483.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00485.html">Next</a> ] Thread: [ <a href="msg00466.html">Previous</a> | <a href="msg00486.html">Next</a> ] Index: [ <A HREF="author.html#00484">Author</A> | <A HREF="#00484">Date</A> | <A HREF="thread.html#00484">Thread</A> ] <!--X-TopPNI-End--> <!--X-MsgBody--> <!--X-Subject-Header-Begin--> <H1>[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</H1> <HR> <!--X-Subject-Header-End--> <!--X-Head-of-Message--> <UL> <LI><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI> <LI><em>Subject</em>: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun </LI> <LI><em>From</em>: "Jon A. Lambert" <<A HREF="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</A>></LI> <LI><em>Date</em>: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 03:36:13 -5</LI> <LI><em>Reply-To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI> </UL> <!--X-Head-of-Message-End--> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin--> <HR> <!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End--> <!--X-Body-of-Message--> <PRE> On 3 Aug 98, J C Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 1998 01:46:21 -5 > Jon A Lambert<jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com> wrote: > > > I'm questioning the direct linkage between real violence and mud > > violence. How can one voluntarily and willingly participate in a > > game where violence is possible, while maintaining that there is > > such a link? I would maintain that willing participation in such a > > environment is tantamount to endorsing the position that violence > > does not occur in muds or that this "sort" of violence is quite > > different than real violence and is acceptable. In addition, > > acceptance of "violence" in such a context does not necessarily > > translate into the way one lives one's real life. > > A very minimalist and impersonal interpretation of MUDs and their > structure: > [snipped some predicates of the argument] I would call this view the scientific approach. It is a system's operational description. That is it places no moral or ethical value statements on any actions. It merely describes behavior. Now if only psychology could stick to such systemic models instead of placing implicit or explicit value statements on behavior, it might qualify as science. :P > Player-derived changes are not technically limited to those > objects not representing players (SAY and TELL are forms of > manipulation as are GIVE, KILL, SUMMON, HUG, PUSH and STEAL), but > may attempt to be by world or game design considerations These player-player interactions in a real world are always accompanied by moral assignations of "value". Even in a sterile and closed experiment involving a fictional society made up wholly of psychopathic or sociopathic objects, a "value" is still assigned to an action. > This is of course the classic, "Its all 1's and 0's, don't get take it > so personally," argument. It argues that mass PK's and the like are > merely bit shuffles with no notable effects outside of the contents of > system memory. > There are like arguments IRL: Genocide matters little in the grand > scheme of things. The universe will neither care or notice. Distant > galaxies will actually be entirely unaffected for the rest of eternity > whether or not humanity extinguishes itself in nuclear fire or plague > in the next fifteen minutes, or not. The bit it ignores of course is > interpretation. I agree that the M59 galaxy will likely never care or > be affected by whether the Hutu's are exterminated or not. However I > and others prefer and attach emotive significance to that decision and > its results. Ditto for the destruction of the rainforests and other > points. Right. But I daresay you will find few "true" believers in such theories. Ask anyone who claims to believe such things to commit suicide. If there is any resistence to this notion, then one is logically forced to admit that they have made an assignation of value to the action . Whether the M59 galaxy is an object that cares or exerts will in any way comparable to a human object is an interesting notion that has implications on both objects. ;) > And there we have the crux of, "To PK or not to PK," or mechanics > versus interpretation. No one can deny that in a multiplayer game there is interaction between humans. I like to think of such interaction as "speech". That is no physical contact occurs between participants. Are there codes of ethics and/or morality associated with actions limited to speech? Yes. In addition, a game's rules may suspend value judgements associated with the use of speech or may provide additional moral restrictions on certain types of speech. For instance in Trivial pursuit, there is an implicit rule that another player may not shout out answers to another players questions, against giving hints or reading the question in a misleading manner. In order for one to play this game a particpiant must agree to abide by the games rules. The rules place value on certain actions involving speech. A much closer example is PBM or E-Mail Diplomacy. In this game participants agree to subject themselves to rather odd rules regarding speech. Backstabbing and prevarication are fair game. Very few players take such matters personally. A well executed diplomatic lie is often viewed with much admiration. In addition "multi-charing" and communications outside the game are viewed with disdain and punishable with the mud equivalent of banning. Playing a game where your brother and cousin are playing countries in coordination is also considered cheating. Enforcement of such activity is as haphazard as your traditional mud considering network anonymity, email forging, etc. and is done in much the same way by game moderators and the judge server owner. OTOH, forging Email in-game to appear to come from another player is well within the rules. :) In summary, I dont' believe it's all 1's and 0's is a valid or rational position since the game involves human interaction. However it may be valid to say "In this game, we are suspending any and all moral valuations on any activities which occur during this game". Quake might be a fair example of such a game. I think it's fair to assume that such rules are pretty much implicit to playing the game. It's also possible that one might not personally like other players in the game and might seek every opportunity to humilate certain people on a regular basis. I don't wish to debate whether one playing with such a view is healthy or not. Any player is free to withdrawal from any game for any reason. > How much value and acknowledgment do we give to the emotive > significances? ("safe" versus laissez faire) How much value and > acknowledgement do we give to the above diagrammed mechanical > structure as versus the interpreted content? (concensual versus power > politics) Which is more important, the mechanical structure or the > emotive interpretation? > I would suggest that most all games place a value on certain actions. Such valuations may or may not coincide with the valuations placed on comparable actions in the real world. Yes, I said most. Even in mud games where most all of the rules regarding RL morals, civility and ethics are suspended, there are usually some rules which are enforced merely to hold players. I don't know many free-for-all games that hold players for long if it is well known that admins and their personal friends roam about with invincible characters randomly killing anyone who logs in. Game players will always bring a very basic (e)valuation to any game. If the game is fixed and/or known to be unwinnable and without enjoyment it is not a desirable game to play. It may not even qualify as a game at all. Sort of like "Calvin-ball", if anyone gets the reference. ;) My basic point is this. If a mud allows unrestricted and nonconsential PvP interaction, then anyone who participates in such a game does so voluntarily and willingly. There can be no "victims" in such a game, either emotionally or physically. Now there certainly are games that I can imagination which very few people will even entertain because they find them personally and morally offensive. And extending that offense to IRL sanctions towards the participants of such games is valid. Note the strong response in the earlier threads in reference to mud rape. So a strong moral stance against games which involve killing which extended to IRL feelings towards those who enjoy or participate in them is certainly a valid position. No? I personally know people who will not participate in any game involving any references to magic or demons. If one wishes to poo poo this as a silly notion that's fine (I don't in fact agree with such a position), yet I will defend it to be as sound as those who have strong moral reservations about other types of activities in a game. Which brings me back to my original point. If one participates frequently in games which allow killing, how can one rational consider RL emotional effects of being a "victim" should such action occur to themself while participating in such a game? And if so why the heck would one voluntarily participate in any such game. In other words, one holds the viewpoint that their virtual game piece is a personal avatar of themself. Actions which affect that avatar are viewed equivalently with RL actions (PK ~= harassment). They are participating in a game in which they have expectations which are not reflective of the game rules nor ther players expectations. I think it's incumbent upon the administrators of a such a game to be upfront and define their own expectations and assumptions of their playerbase as clearly as possible. -- --/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Internet:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com /*\-- --/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <<A HREF="http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc">http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc</A>> /*\-- --/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\-- </PRE> <!--X-Body-of-Message-End--> <!--X-MsgBody-End--> <!--X-Follow-Ups--> <HR> <ul compact><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>: <ul> <li><strong><A NAME="00487" HREF="msg00487.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> s001gmu#nova,wright.edu</li></ul> <li><strong><A NAME="00486" HREF="msg00486.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong> <ul compact><li><em>From:</em> Robert Woods <rwoods#nebula,honors.unr.edu></li></ul> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-Follow-Ups-End--> <!--X-References--> <UL><LI><STRONG>References</STRONG>: <UL> <LI><STRONG><A NAME="00143" HREF="msg00143.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG> <UL><LI><EM>From:</EM> "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com></LI></UL></LI> <LI><STRONG><A NAME="00466" HREF="msg00466.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG> <UL><LI><EM>From:</EM> J C Lawrence <claw#under,engr.sgi.com></LI></UL></LI> </UL></LI></UL> <!--X-References-End--> <!--X-BotPNI--> <UL> <LI>Prev by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00483.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Socket-Script: Socket-capabable script language and matching library</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by Date: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00485.html">[MUD-Dev] 3D World Models</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Prev by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00466.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Next by thread: <STRONG><A HREF="msg00486.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG> </LI> <LI>Index(es): <UL> <LI><A HREF="index.html#00484"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI> <LI><A HREF="thread.html#00484"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> <!--X-BotPNI-End--> <!--X-User-Footer--> <!--X-User-Footer-End--> <ul><li>Thread context: <BLOCKQUOTE><UL> <LI><STRONG>[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</STRONG>, <EM>(continued)</EM> <ul compact> <ul compact> <ul compact> <ul compact> <ul compact> <ul compact> <LI><strong><A NAME="00286" HREF="msg00286.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Matthew R. Sheahan <a href="mailto:chaos#crystal,palace.net">chaos#crystal,palace.net</a>, Tue 21 Jul 1998, 21:52 GMT </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00288" HREF="msg00288.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Travis Casey <a href="mailto:efindel#polaris,net">efindel#polaris,net</a>, Tue 21 Jul 1998, 22:19 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00320" HREF="msg00320.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Marian Griffith <a href="mailto:gryphon#iaehv,nl">gryphon#iaehv,nl</a>, Thu 23 Jul 1998, 20:23 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </ul> <LI><strong><A NAME="00466" HREF="msg00466.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, J C Lawrence <a href="mailto:claw#under,engr.sgi.com">claw#under,engr.sgi.com</a>, Mon 03 Aug 1998, 20:55 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00484" HREF="msg00484.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Jon A. Lambert <a href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</a>, Wed 05 Aug 1998, 07:38 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00486" HREF="msg00486.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Robert Woods <a href="mailto:rwoods#nebula,honors.unr.edu">rwoods#nebula,honors.unr.edu</a>, Wed 05 Aug 1998, 08:49 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00554" HREF="msg00554.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Jon A. Lambert <a href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</a>, Sat 08 Aug 1998, 05:22 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> <LI><strong><A NAME="00487" HREF="msg00487.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, s001gmu <a href="mailto:s001gmu#nova,wright.edu">s001gmu#nova,wright.edu</a>, Wed 05 Aug 1998, 13:28 GMT <UL> <LI><strong><A NAME="00553" HREF="msg00553.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>, Jon A. Lambert <a href="mailto:jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com">jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com</a>, Sat 08 Aug 1998, 05:22 GMT </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </UL> </LI> </ul> </ul> </ul> </ul> </ul> </LI> </UL></BLOCKQUOTE> </ul> <hr> <center> [ <a href="../">Other Periods</a> | <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a> | <a href="/search.php3">Search</a> ] </center> <hr> </body> </html>