[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 course. That said, if you're sitting there exchanging chitchat about, say, quest-completion techniques against the mud policy, it's generally going to be too late to move that conversation elsewhere once you discover that the admins were snooping and get hit on the head with a ban-stick. *shrugs* Obviously there are moral issues, I'm just giving the best you can manage control-wise once something like this happens.

I, personally, do not involve myself with muds with tight restrictions on rules... What you develop is a black market, whether it's in quest-solutions or elsewhere, that cannot be monitored, and cannot be controlled, whereas a more open policy seems to fare significantly better. That said, I am offering the best alternative for an admin seeking to retain control, which is the only real reason to deal with this issue at all (aside from the oft addressed spammage).

Originally Posted by 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.

It was an example. Mud policy, in general, can very easily take on a bunch of stuff, ranging from quest-solutions to profanity. Which ones you want to monitor on what channels is your own business, I just gave the most common one (and, yes, profanity is very commonly monitored on private channels, for better or worse). Further, read my quote a bit farther down.

Originally Posted by 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.

Obviously they can always take it to AIM. I mean, look at it this way. If you hit the ban-stick as soon as they reveal said program, you lose. If you can get a hold of the program for your own use as far as monitoring (first thing you should try), great, but you still have spam on public channels to deal with. So, then you offer a PRIVATE CHANNEL. I mean, they could've taken it to AIM any time in those previous steps, and any time after this, but what you're doing is attempting to maximize your ability to enforce rules, monitor player activites, etc... There is no be-all, end-all solution, but for an admin concerned about enforcement of policy, it is the best you can try to do.

Let me quote myself again, and maybe you can actually read it this time:

Originally Posted by 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).

P.S. Apologies for the HTML-age, was thinking TMC, not TMS.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ foo) Of course. That said, if you're sitting there exchanging chitchat about, say, quest-completion techniques against the mud policy, it's generally going to be too late to move that conversation elsewhere once you discover that the admins were snooping and get hit on the head with a ban-stick. *shrugs* Obviously there are moral issues, I'm just giving the best you can manage control-wise once something like this happens.

If said quests were so lame that even talking about techniques for completing them is cause for a policy banning them, I think those quests suck in the first place and should be tossed out. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ bar) 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 (Spazmatic @ bar) It was an example.

Then I suggest you choose examples that are not so easy to defeat? I'm not going to do your arguing for you!

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

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ baz) 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.

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ baz) Obviously they can always take it to AIM. I mean, look at it this way. If you hit the ban-stick as soon as they reveal said program, you lose. If you can get a hold of the program for your own use as far as monitoring (first thing you should try), great, but you still have spam on public channels to deal with. So, then you offer a PRIVATE CHANNEL. I mean, they could've taken it to AIM any time in those previous steps, and any time after this, but what you're doing is attempting to maximize your ability to enforce rules, monitor player activites, etc... There is no be-all, end-all solution, but for an admin concerned about enforcement of policy, it is the best you can try to do.

Um, the point I was addressing is that you're not stopping it at all. Yes, you're maximizing your ability to control the communications of your players, even when such control is so easily circumventable and you gain absolutely nothing.

If a rule is so essential to the game that breaking it is cause for bannination, and this rule is so ridiculously easy to circumvent, the game is already fundamentally broken in my eyes.

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ foo) Let me quote myself again, and maybe you can actually read it this time:

I fail to see what you're wanting me to understand by re-reading these apparently key statements. Want to give me a clue so I can complete this quest?

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ bar) Sounds like a control-freak to me.

Originally Posted by (Spazmatic @ bar) First: Bite me. Ad hominem attacks make you look like an idiot.

I gotta watch what I eat, you know, and I've already had twice my daily dose of control-freak.

[Xorith]

So much bickering over such a minor issue.

I look at the whole of the situation here. It's not so much the limiting of communication or exerting control. While I think a major point is being missed in that aspect (the administrator *does* have control and has the right to run his or her MUD as he or she sees fit), it's a rather boring point.

Looking more so at the program that was created. I don't know about anyone else here, but my goal and hope for my own MUD is for it to grow into a place where people can come in and enjoy themselves. It's not for everyone, and I do have some very harsh rules on roleplay and how I expect people who play my game to act. In general, I stress that even in disagreement, there should be respect and consideration. I'm probably asking for the impossible, but it's nothing more than asking mature adults to act like mature adults. I'm not running a day care center, I'm running a Role-Playing Game.

Programs like this introduce an out of character element into a world that I'd like to keep mostly in-character. There are or will be in-game languages and various means of private in-game communication, so the entire point of creating such a program is indeed moot should the point have been innocent enough. If it wasn't, then it would be wise to ban the program and punish those who created it. What would be a non-innocent point? It's already been covered: circumventing the 'control' of the staff by speaking in a manner that they can not decypher.

From the role-play aspect, this could be argued. Perhaps this player's character is a scribe who spent long hours by dim candlelight to create his own language. I'll give credit where due, and this would be interesting enough. However, I'd much rather the player seek out myself with this new language so that it could be implemented directly into the game (with credit given where it is due), even if it meant giving him the means to control who could or could not read and write in this new language.

From the control aspect, I don't see how any competent administrator could argue this even though some already have. To allow such a program would be to give up some of your control. Your control isn't earth-shaking, however it is what usually keeps a MUD glued together. Not knowing what is being said could open you up to many unpleasant things, most of which have been discussed. The major one was pointed out by KaVir - that is your MUD being used as a means to discuss illegal activity. Other things include the advantage this would give those special players who have the program over players who do not, especially in a PVP environment. Lets face it, if you're not in control of your game, then who is? To accuse an administrator of being a control-freak is like accusing a Senator of being a politician, however the latter is less derrogatory (in most cases anyway).

I think those who spout off 'control-freak' in regard to this issue may also be the same who, as players, bitch and whine about how a game they are playing is run. They feel they have the right to control the game just because they login day after day, as if they have some greater knowledge than the person who's putting his or her hard work into it. Rather than taking the more obvious and logical route of NOT logging into this game, since they obviously can't stand how it's run, they continue to login every day and try to exert some false control. This sort of delusional state is unfortunately common in the world of MUDs. I've seen it before, and I have to confess that I've been that delusional player before. Though, it's amazing what one learns when he opens his eyes to the obvious truth staring blankly at him, as if wishing to beat him over the head with something called 'Common Sense'.

-- Xorith

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ foo) From the control aspect, I don't see how any competent administrator could argue this even though some already have. To allow such a program would be to give up some of your control. Your control isn't earth-shaking, however it is what usually keeps a MUD glued together.

What is this, some sort of slippery slope? If you give up the ability to have intimate knowledge of the private conversations of your players, the glue that binds the MUD will come undone? Sorry, but that's just stupid.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ bar) Not knowing what is being said could open you up to many unpleasant things, most of which have been discussed. The major one was pointed out by KaVir - that is your MUD being used as a means to discuss illegal activity.

OK, I'm calling BS on this. Nearly every IRC server has a disclaimer of legal liability for messages passing through their networks, and most are still around and kicking with no problems. What makes MUDs any different?

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ baz) Other things include the advantage this would give those special players who have the program over players who do not, especially in a PVP environment.

No. Those players that want the special advantage would just take it to IM, where it's far more conveniant to pass private messages than by copy/pasting text into a decryptor.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ foo) Lets face it, if you're not in control of your game, then who is?

Here again with the slippery slope.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ bar) I think those who spout off 'control-freak' in regard to this issue may also be the same who, as players, bitch and whine about how a game they are playing is run. They feel they have the right to control the game just because they login day after day, as if they have some greater knowledge than the person who's putting his or her hard work into it. Rather than taking the more obvious and logical route of NOT logging into this game, since they obviously can't stand how it's run, they continue to login every day and try to exert some false control.

I'm at a complete loss as to how this analogy applies to me, the only one who has been spouting off at the control-freakiness of the nanny admins. What in the world are you talking about?

[Xorith]

I've argued with you before, "Yui Unifex". It seems you still have problems reading the whole of a post, and only quoting that which you can most easily flame.

I covered private communications.

The actions the RIAA are taking against filesharing networks is evidence that sometimes a simple disclaimer isn't enough.

MUDs are *NOT* a private medium of communication.

If you're at a loss, then I'm afraid there is no hope for you. If you run a MUD, please let me know what it is. I'd hate to stumble upon a game where the administrator lacks control of his own online community.

Do yourself a favor and read the whole post before replying.

-- Xorith

Here's a hypothetical question for all you 12 year old mud admins to ponder from the dark depths of your parents' **** soaked basements: what if these ungodly industrious players (who, gasp, think on their own!) got the idea to go the next step, which is to funnel their private communications through a completely separate server, also running on telnet, and use some simple triggers in their mud client so it seems as if the "channel" is part of your mud?  this way not only can you not monitor it, but you cannot even know it exists; and it will transcend silent rooms, silenced flag, incapacitation, lag (both intended, ie spell lag, or unintended, ie router burps). What's more, all it would take is one person to set up such a server and distribute instructions for how to integrate it using zmud, and your entire playerbase will soon be able to speak amongst eachother and there's not a freakin thing you can do about it.

So, all that said, just tell them not to broadcast nonsense over a _public_ channel, and whatever they want to do in their own little group chats, let them. This is a case where you (the mud admin) really have no power at all, so merely trying to wield an imaginary power just makes you look like a moron.

Originally Posted by For the Valar may work many things with thought rather than with hands, and without voices in silence they may hold council with one another.

Few things are more annoying than control freak mud admins. I bet that as kids you tortured the family pets for fun.


Lord Xchantharus, Supreme Deity of
Mists of Faerieland MUD, gets ****ed
off when players communicate by less
orthodox means. REALLY ****ed off.
And someone is going to get shot!

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ foo) I've argued with you before, "Yui Unifex". It seems you still have problems reading the whole of a post, and only quoting that which you can most easily flame.

Sorry, I didn't take issue with your entire post. I only quote the parts that I care about. If you think I missed something essential to your argument, how about you quote it from the original post so I can show how full of it you are?

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ bar) I covered private communications.

Where? Please quote and show where I missed some essential information.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ baz) The actions the RIAA are taking against filesharing networks is evidence that sometimes a simple disclaimer isn't enough.

The filesharing network fiasco is such a horrible analogy when it comes to MUDs that I don't even know where to begin in refuting you. I'll start with intent: The intent of a MUD is to provide a game, not a place where users can exchange copyrighted material. I'll next touch upon volume: Most communications within a MUD have nothing to do with copyrighted materials; the same can't be said for filesharing networks. See what the Supreme Court calls a "substantial noninfringing use". And third: Nowhere did I suggest that banning people that you know are engaging in illegal activity makes you a control freak. Finally: Most muds are free. They are not benefitting financialy from these activities.

All of these are major points of the RIAA's cases against filesharing networks (particularly Napster), but none of them apply to my argument. You're so wrong it's funny.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ foo) If you're at a loss, then I'm afraid there is no hope for you. If you run a MUD, please let me know what it is.

My mud chat server can be found in my sig, and you're welcome to come by even if I don't agree with your opinion or I think you're a doofus.

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ bar) I'd hate to stumble upon a game where the administrator lacks control of his own online community.

We can see another facet of the control-freak here: The belief that control is an all or nothing affair. It's funny how you think that just because I do not have 'snoop', that I also do not have 'ban' or 'disconnect'.

EDIT: But the implications of this statement are disturbing. I don't want to control the community found on my server. They are intelligent people that can handle themselves. I am not their nanny. I am only there to stop unpleasantries that they can not stop themselves, like DoS spam attacks.

EDIT: And for once, I agree with erdos =).

[Xorith]

And the time has come to do two things:

1) Remind the trolls of this board that the original post asked for opinions, not childish bickering and berating.

2) Remember once again why I stay away from these forums (and others like it) until someone feels the need to send me a link to some debate they feel I might be interested in.

I'll let the rest of you have at your little trollings now. The opinions were shared. I value the opinions mentioned. I'm striving to ignore the trolls, though it IS difficult. Thank you, those who have made this discussion worthwhile.

-- Xorith

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Xorith @ foo) And the time has come to do two things: 1) Remind the trolls of this board that the original post asked for opinions, not childish bickering and berating.

Might come as a news flash to you, but we (and you) are bickering over the opinions that were given. You think I'm going to sit back and let people like you make wildly incorrect, unsubstantiated claims pocked full of logical fallacies and get away without any sort of berating?

[shadowfyr]

Originally Posted by (erdos @ Mar. 17 2004,10:53) <snip> what if these ungodly industrious players (who, gasp, think on their own! got the idea to go the next step, which is to funnel their private communications through a completely separate server, also running on telnet, and use some simple triggers in their mud client so it seems as if the "channel" is part of your mud?  <snip>

Shhh!!! We don't want them finding out that programs like MudMaster, zMud, MUSHclient and others already provide such P2P server/client solutions. lol

----

In fact such programs even provide 'snoop' and 'remote command' type options that the mud can't tell isn't coming from the users client (since it is) or being sent to someone elese.

If you are really worried about this then, "get a clue". The only real solution is a custom client that you 'must' have to play, most of which don't provide scripting or any of the other *nasty* things that honest players use to help them keep track of things in the game more easilly, but which scare the admin, since they can't detect their use or stop it. However, no matter what bells and wistles get added to the custom client, it still royally sucks compared to one that let you code scripts to do real work. And some things you need this for.

For example, potions on my mud would require keeping a list of all ingredients needed to make them. I can do it on paper, but coding a plugin for Mushclient that *learned* made more sense to me and other people can use it too. Someone else made an external application that can be called from script and provides a detail map for a Mechwarrior based mud. Someone else recently made a external window to which you can feed colored text, for things like chats and stuff. Some of this could be made in a custom client (maybe all), but major changes to the mud would require a entirely new version of the client. We just patch our scripts.

Personally.. If someone has a client that can script such a encryption/decryption feature, then it probably can do a lot more. If it is one of the big three, MM, zMud or MUSHclient, then it has P2P chat built in, no need to encrypt. If they are doing it on the mud then a) you are right, they are out to get you!!, b) they are using it to be more unique (I considered a translator of sorts for the kitsune race on the mud I play) or c) they are trying to be annonamous, but are too bloody stupid to get a client that already lets you do so through MM Chat or zChat.

Best bet is to find out 'why' they are actually doing it and see if middle ground is possible, like implimenting the encoding/decoding on the mud itself and having the admin's view be always plain text. But to assume they are doing it to cheat or do an end run around you is imho more a case of fear than reality. Its your call if you want to nuke/ban them, but it doesn't really tell you 'why' they did it or if there may have been some useful purpose to it.

[karlan]

All other considerations aside, it is worth stopping it on a global channel just from the spam point of view, if you have global channels, for general communications, and they start filling up with reasonably meaningless gibberish, it's spam, if they feel they have to have a private method of communicating, with out using tell or whisper or any built in method, fine, do it, just do not spam everyone else with it.

EG: My friend and I are in a busy room/conference, rather than talk between ourselves privately, we decide to hold our conversation, at the top of our lungs, in a made up language.

In what way/world is this not...
a) really annoying
Or...
b) rude

and for that reason, I would not be surprised if we were asked/forced to leave

[visko]

My 3 cents....

The argument of spam and illegal activities discussions seems to have weight still; especially if someone ends up with a log of a conversation that was encrypted but was discussing putting a nuke in a building somewhere, you'd be in trouble no matter how many layers of disclaiming you put on your MUD. IANAL, but just because I have a sign on the front door of my house saying "discussions of illegal activity will not be initiated or condoned by the owner of this house" doesn't mean I don't get some fun in a few hot seats if people discussed shooting up a building in my house, then did it.

That being said, whoever created this program should probably get HIRED. Having no experience with encryption, I don't know what that would entail, but ####, they wrote a networked encryption communications program(or plugin, whichever)?! Who cares about beating them; I want to put them to work.

The philosophical question of whether you allow communication over a public channel to be intelligible to the rest of the players seems to be a choice issue; if communication is so relevant on your MUD that it should always be understandable to the player base, then you tell them to stop. If it's not, you tell them to give you the decryption algorithm and simply log it. Which method is BETTER seems to be subjective, and related less to presonal principle (control freaks vs whatever name-calling Yui received) and more towards the game's objectives.

-Visk