[Iluvatar]

First a little set-up for orientation...

In our world as I'm sure in most, there are various modes of communications offered to players. Some are obviously public and a few are semi-private belonging to only certain 'elite' groups. The most senior immortals have access to all the channels for obvious monitoring purposes.

One industrious individual spent a week creating an on-line encryption tool that turned normal english into text gibberish on display but allowed clear text to those with the tool and began distributing it.

I knew it was under construction and the instant I saw it being used, I stomped on it hard, pretty much for the same reasons reflected in the earlier discussion about foreign languages.

As a result, 3 players quit, one is deciding and a fifth 'will quit' when they finish leveling their newest creation. Duh.

What would you do?

[Raeven]

I would crack the guy on the head with a welding torch. People shouldn't be doing that kinda stuff to other peoples muds. Report him or something. And how did he get this program into your mud in the first place?

[Spazmatic]

Well, a good defense against it is to offer private channels in the mud. After all, he probably either knew or has come to know the people he wants to talk to reasonably well, if he's going to send them a program, so a private channel works just as well. This way, though, you can monitor it.

However, once it happens... Not a whole lot you can do. Should be up front about such rules, though... If you know it's under production, stop it BEFORE it gets distributed.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by And how did he get this program into your mud in the first place?

I think he means somekind of encryption/decryption program (or proxy thing) that runs on the client side... Not something someone has plugged into the actual mudcode.

[Gemini]

I'm not sure what their punishment was, but i think it was prolly a bit harsh. I would give them all a warning, or if they spammed up the channels with it then give them a small punishment. but warn the whole MUD, that if it ever happened again, the punishment would be servire.
As for the people that left, let them go. Some people just need to be drama queens. If they badmouth your MUD, dont respond, just ignore them. The mud in which i am an immortal on has had more then out fair share of drama queens leaving and badmouthing us. Whenever we responded, they did everything to make us look worse. Weve pretty much stopped that. Let them be, if they were that easy to leave, then they were gonna leave soon enough as it is, and possibly were just waiting for a reason.
And for the guy leveling before he leaves... oh god, i could write pages about him. but i'll spare you from more of my horrible ranting and give this advice: Dont second guess yourself, otherwise you'll drive yourself ccrazy. If you seriously messed up, other people will let you know.

[Yuki]

Personally, I think you did the right thing.

They are not guaranteed anything. If they wanted a private conversation so badly, why didn't they load up AIM, ICQ, YIM, MSN Messenger, whatever?

Privacy should be given, but on the same note, it has a limit. When a player was threatening to shoot me with a rifle at a mud convention, I decided to see if what people really said. Every channel was monitored for any variation of my name, along with some other keywords.

It lasted a short while and then I removed the code, but there were many, many cheaters caught simply by saying my name, hoping I wasn't watching.

Interesting Stuff.

Anyhow, you did the right thing. Penalty wise, I hope you simply warned them first before flying off the handle. If they kept it up, then become irate.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ Mar. 15 2004,16:17) Well, a good defense against it is to offer private channels in the mud. After all, he probably either knew or has come to know the people he wants to talk to reasonably well, if he's going to send them a program, so a private channel works just as well. This way, though, you can monitor it.

While I don't agree with the monitoring aspect, I am also curious as to the reason for the crackdown. This is essentially making a public channel into a pseudo-private channel, but it could get quite annoying for users of that channel that do not have the key. How is this any different from simply offering a private channel?

[Spazmatic]

Originally Posted by While I don't agree with the monitoring aspect, I am also curious as to the reason for the crackdown. This is essentially making a public channel into a pseudo-private channel, but it could get quite annoying for users of that channel that do not have the key. How is this any different from simply offering a private channel?

As I said, and as you quoted, it can be monitored, whereas an intelligently written encryption program cannot. Thus, if your mud has rules against certain types of vocabulary, likely of a profane nature, they can be enforced on private channels (assuming you have no issues with monitoring "private" channels).

Of course, it's a bit of an... academic distinction. First, people who are voluntarily using the encryption program probably don't care what's being said. Second, monitoring private channels is normally not done anyways. Third, does it matter <i>that</i> much?

So, yes, while there is a difference, it's not always going to be one that matters. However, given that the potential for control is <i>there</i>, it is a somewhat better solution (that and it moves the spammage).

[Jazuela]

Games exist to perform a specific function, just like most things. Whenever you circumvent the code to make it perform a function it is not intended to perform, then you are abusing the generosity of the game owner, who has provided you with this venue, for this purpose.

Though it's an extreme comparison, it's an obvious one so here 'tis:

A hunting rifle is designed, built, and sold for the purpose of hunting animals. Whether for sport or for food and hides, that is the intended function of the hunting rifle. When a person uses a hunting rifle to kill their next door neighbor, they are not only violating the law, they are also using the weapon for something it wasn't intended to be used for. When the gun manufacturer ends up in the news because it turns out a whole lot of people prefer their hunting rifles to commit murders, it hurts the manufacturer, AND all the people who use the hunting rifle for the purpose for which it was intended.

If you want to play a game, use their code, and whatever client they allow you to use, whatever triggers they allow you to use, whatever scripts and highlights and ISPs and whatever else. You are there because they have allowed you to be there, and supposedly because you want to play their game. Intentionally circumventing their code is cheating of the worst sort, and does nothing but hurt everyone else in the long run.

If you want to talk to your buddies privately, badly enough, then take it to instant messaging or pick up the telephone and dial their phone number, or hey - here's an idea - log off and meet people face to face. If I was running a game and found out someone was making use of such an application, I'd siteban them permanently.

You shouldn't even need to have a rule about something like this. It should be a given. You are playing -my- game. If you want to play your own game, create your own game and play it. That goes for languages, code, private channels, roleplay, PK, everything else.

[John]

The intent for creating the encryption program is an important issue here, and could have had an effect on how it was handled. Why did they want an encryption program? So they could talk to each other about where the cool secret treasure is? So they can organise to clean out an area tomorrow at time X? So they can do anything else, that they don't mind the staff knowing about, but don't want other players to know?

If that was the case then a simple "could you give me the encryption program so I can distribute it amongst the staff" probably would have solved the issue.

However the more likely scenario is they wanted privacy from the staff and players. Either to cheat, or just so the staff can't spy on them. Those two scenarios couldn't be tolerated.

[Estarra]

It wouldn't bother me if players made a "secret language or code" to mask their conversations. That said, if it was used excessively on public channels, I'd come down on them and ask them to cut it as that's harassing or at least annoying to other players.

Frankly, I can't see how hiding conversations in-game is any different than passing information on some IM.

[Spazmatic]

Originally Posted by Frankly, I can't see how hiding conversations in-game is any different than passing information on some IM

It's not, but it's something you can stop.

It is not something, however, I would ever stop by saying "Stop" (that's a lotta stop). Much better to ask nicely, and also offer them an alternative that can be monitored. If they still complain, they're cheaters, and, as Emeril says, "Bam bam!" If they don't mind, then awesome awesome awesome.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ Mar. 15 2004,22:17) As I said, and as you quoted, it can be monitored, whereas an intelligently written encryption program cannot. Thus, if your mud has rules against certain types of vocabulary, likely of a profane nature, they can be enforced on private channels (assuming you have no issues with monitoring "private" channels).

RE: Monitoring. Of course I'm aware of the monitoring aspect, I simply said I disagree with it. If some fool wants to try to monitor my private channels, I'll simply take my conversations to be guarded by the plethora of AIM encryption plugins.

RE: Profanity. That has got to be the silliest reasoning I've ever heard. Rules against profanity are there to stop players who would take offense from being offended. These people are voluntarily communicating, so it is trivial for them to cease such communications and thus stop being offended.

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ foo) Games exist to perform a specific function, just like most things. Whenever you circumvent the code to make it perform a function it is not intended to perform, then you are abusing the generosity of the game owner, who has provided you with this venue, for this purpose.

Ugh. Speak for yourself. I could die a happy administrator if my players were enterprising enough to create programs to overcome the communication failings of my game.

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ foo) Frankly, I can't see how hiding conversations in-game is any different than passing information on some IM

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ bar) It's not, but it's something you can stop.

Why so militant? So you squelch your players from communicating in game, and they take it to IM. Question: What did you gain? Answer: Absolutely nothing. Sounds like a control-freak to me.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by So you squelch your players from communicating in game, and they take it to IM. Question: What did you gain? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Question: What did you lose? Answer: Spam, and (possible) liability for illegal activities being organised over your mud.

As pointed out previously, it's no different from asking players to communicate only in English (or whatever language your mud uses). When the majority of players can't understand what's being said over the global channels then all that encryption-happy minority are doing is spamming the other players with gibberish. And if your global channels are busy anyway, that's really not something you want to promote.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 16 2004,09:09) Question: What did you lose? Answer: Spam, and (possible) liability for illegal activities being organised over your mud.

Oh I absolutely agree with the spam motive, no question about that. My primary concern is about turning this into a private channel, and why the crackdown was chosen over the IMO superior technical solution. I'm ambivalent about liability, but that's a topic for another day.

[Jazuela]

Yui Unifex responded:

Originally Posted by Ugh. Speak for yourself. I could die a happy administrator if my players were enterprising enough to create programs to overcome the communication failings of my game.

The difference is that you are giving consent, in advance, for people to help you fix a failing in your game. In the situation presented by the originator of this thread, no such "failing" was mentioned, and no such consent was given.

In the game I play, the staff welcomes new stuff submitted by players all the time. They absolutely love new ideas, suggestions for improvement, etc. etc. The main thrust though, is that this stuff has to be submitted to the staff for approval, and it's the staff that does the implementation.

If players created a prog that circumvented your code, Yui, and did -not- distribute the prog to you and prevented you from gaining access to it, are you saying you'd be glad, and give them a pat on the back and encourage them to continue? Or - would you tell them that it's a great prog, does the job from what you can see, and you will be happy to implement it in the game as soon as they give it to you? And if they refuse after you ask nicely - then either prevent them from using it, or prevent them from playing.

[Yui Unifex]

(Disclaimer: Please remember that I have already addressed the issue of spam!)

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Mar. 16 2004,09:36) Yui Unifex responded: Originally Posted by Ugh. Speak for yourself. I could die a happy administrator if my players were enterprising enough to create programs to overcome the communication failings of my game. The difference is that you are giving consent, in advance, for people to help you fix a failing in your game. In the situation presented by the originator of this thread, no such "failing" was mentioned, and no such consent was given.

I'm not giving explicit consent, and I don't want to. I'd rather have an atmosphere that anything is permissible so long as it is explicitly not permitted, rather than one that anything that is not explicitly permitted is not permissible. Frankly I find it to be the very picture of a control freak. "You mean players are communicating without my express knowledge or consent?!"

The way I see it, the players took it upon themselves to fulfill a need that would be better served with private channels within the game itself. While the spam factor would certainly tick me off, it certainly would not tick me off enough that I would want to alienate my playerbase for no gain over it, given the alternatives.

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ foo) If players created a prog that circumvented your code, Yui, and did -not- distribute the prog to you and prevented you from gaining access to it, are you saying you'd be glad, and give them a pat on the back and encourage them to continue? Or - would you tell them that it's a great prog, does the job from what you can see, and you will be happy to implement it in the game as soon as they give it to you? And if they refuse after you ask nicely - then either prevent them from using it, or prevent them from playing.

If players could circumvent my code, then that code would have a bug that should be fixed no matter what the circumstances. But what we have here is not a circumvention of code, since any code that pretends to enforce some sort of Cone of Silence between players is fundamentally flawed in any form.

[Spazmatic]

Originally Posted by Sounds like a control-freak to me.

First: Bite me. Ad hominem attacks make you look like an idiot.

Originally Posted by RE: Monitoring. Of course I'm aware of the monitoring aspect, I simply said I disagree with it. If some fool wants to try to monitor my private channels, I'll simply take my conversations to be guarded by the plethora of AIM encryption plugins.

Of