<!-- 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>