02 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 141st comment:
Votes: 0
ATT_Turan said:
As I said before, I can understand the idea of being transparent for transparency's sake, but I don't see how this can add anything to the game.


If you don't see how open dispute resolution processes or other things which make administration more open and transparent add anything to the MUD, then you probably haven't had to experience any sort of bad administrative drama. For that you should consider yourself lucky - its all but inevitable that even the best of admins with the best of experience and intentions can find themselves stepping on a land mine of controversy.

At this point, however, most if not all of the arguments that can be made have been, and a lot of why opening the administration of a MUD up is a good thing is something that is usually - and best - taught by experience.

Maya/Rudha
02 Sep, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 142nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
If you don't see how open dispute resolution processes or other things which make administration more open and transparent add anything to the MUD, then you probably haven't had to experience any sort of bad administrative drama.

Open dispute processes are not the same thing as the full transparency that some have been talking about (including you, me, and Turan). At this point, as you said, a lot of stuff has been thrown out there, and people need to be careful in identifying what it is they're talking about. I suspect that Turan was talking about the log thing, whereas you recently talked about open dispute resolving. It makes for a difficult dialog when people aren't on the same page. :smile:
02 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 143rd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Open dispute processes are not the same thing as the full transparency that some have been talking about (including you, me, and Turan). At this point, as you said, a lot of stuff has been thrown out there, and people need to be careful in identifying what it is they're talking about. I suspect that Turan was talking about the log thing, whereas you recently talked about open dispute resolving. It makes for a difficult dialog when people aren't on the same page. :smile:


I suppose I could comment on his in light of a public log specifically; his post does bring to mind one benefit I had not considered until now: the more people that are looking at logs more frequently, the higher the chance is that you're going to catch something that may not be obvious (as I should hope we'd catch things that are obvious regardless.)

Maya/Rudha
02 Sep, 2010, ATT_Turan wrote in the 144th comment:
Votes: 0
I was (somewhat clearly I thought) commenting on the idea of keeping public logs of Imm commands. That being said, none of the handful of MUD's I've been an Imm/admin on have had any great controversies. I find that not hiring random people to be members of staff and keeping the size of said staff to a bare minimum quite helps with that. When the staff for a MUD consists of three people who are like-minded friends, the chances of one of them doing stupid things to players that can cause drama plummets.
05 Sep, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 145th comment:
Votes: 0
Are you actually putting any trust in logs ? Unless you are the one actually compiling and lauching the code on the server, there is no way to know what actually appears in the log.
This is a simple matter of trust giving. Either you trust your implementor acting fairly, or you do not. But there is no hard coded solution possible, unless you give anyone access to the full code, how you compile it, and a way to be sure the hashcode on the binary is accessible from anyone. And for the hascode part, I do not see any solution without giving some access to the server.
140.0/145