[Lasher]

Originally Posted by Kleothera Anyway, my point here is that perhaps we may want to look at the OP and ask ourselves a set of questions- 1. Do you think we as a community should perhaps expect a minimum voluntary code of ethics to deal with players in games?Y/N 2. What is the shortest possible list of the things that a God should not do to his players on a MUD in terms of the treatment given. (until a better word is found, rights) Are there any things that staff shouldn't do to their players- no matter what? 3. Perhaps what is a minimum list of things you would expect from players in return in terms of the above civil behaviour? (responsibilities) 4. Assuming we agree on something on some of the above issues, perhaps the next question would be on how would we make this wishlist into a customary law in the MUD community- or atleast as a beginning among the readers of this forum.

I don't think you can simplify it even that far across a diverse range of MUDs. For example, on many muds, it would be completely unacceptable for an immortal to randomly go around executing people because he or she were having a bad day. Most players would agree that should be in any "bill of rights".

Then what happens when you get to a MUD where a large part of that MUD's theme is that you may anger the "gods" (who may be human controlled behind the curtain) or you may please the gods to gain rewards? In the context of this MUD, earning the favor of the gods is a good thing and "favoritism" is a planned part of the game, maybe even a good thing.

On most MUDs, running into trouble with a "god" because you killed their mortal character would be a bad thing. On this mud it may be nothing more than part of the game - part of the way to earn favor with a god is by pleasing their mortal incarnation. Whether this would be a popular MUD or not I don't know, I personally wouldn't play it, but to imply they are somehow wrong by doing exactly what their theme dictates because it does not meet a "customary law in the MUD community" just doesn't feel right.

The real issue most people have is with MUDs that say/imply "we won't do X" and then go and do "X" often. So unless that customary law comes with a courtroom, judge and jury what will it achieve?

The player base is already judge and jury - maybe I'm being naive here but are there really many MUDs run so tyranically that this would be necessary?

I would imagine either things are not as bad on those particular MUDs as some might have you believe, or they are already seeing the consequences (judgment) as the player base walks?

[Zivilyn]

Kleo, I completely agree that the 'MUD' is the collection of people in that environment. I think that's why flat stock Rom muds can really kick butt, but completely custom ones and suckith, all depends on the staff and the players.

I think yes, it's completely a volunteer thing with the staff (with the exception of myself in my own game, as I also get to pay for hosting etc). It's when players start demanding 'I want this right now!' from a staff person that I have to remind them that: 1. The staff are players as well, and are volunteering their time to help. 2. It's really NOT a blast to come up with 25 unique room descriptions, exit descriptions and 8 items based off a 'make it like this'10 line descriptive note... We build OTHER things for enjoyment, like continuing the development of the world for all the players, not simply that person's keep. (Just a recent example, the guy honestly thought we'd be stoked that we could make it up ourselves for his character to play in, and that we should snap to it... that's dangerous, as it usually ends in some very odd building heh).

Anyway yes, I think completely the playerbase IS the game, without it you have lifeless text and code, but every once in a while you get that spoiled brat who's entitled to you doing what they want, when they want, and you should thank them for it. That was the only point I was trying to illustrate.

1. Yes I do think there should be a minimum at least. Fairness and honest dealings, without bias or find someone else who isn't biased with that particular person.
2. Not do:
A. Never debase a player, if you want them gone, ban them or such, but don't use the mud as a forum to lambast them with humilation simply for your own sick pleasure (ex-imp we had, split the mud over it, theirs long gone now, no wonder).
B. Privacy: Unless a person appears to be breaking rules that are established, respect their privacy.
C. Play favorites with the IMM: You might with your player, but not as the IMM.
3. Players should:
A. Respect that the staff is there doing a thankless job to improve the game. Be civil, be respectful.
B. Don't cheat, if you do, accept the consequences without being a b.. without the usual childish actions.
C. Help promote the game to friends: the single biggest thing that can grow a mud is telling a friend with similar interests. It's how I found the game I now run.
4. I think the problem again comes down to 'rule by committee', see Bartle's 'Democratic Mud' thing. Same issue, everyone has a different set of rules and expectations. It's as diverse and opposed as people's political or social views. But, perhaps a few sets of rules.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by prof1515 3. Players should be able to expect fairness from a game’s staff and secure in the knowledge that favoritism is not employed to give some players benefits over others.

This comes up a lot, but it will be impossible to enforce or adjudge in an environment with subjective reward systems. Consider a MUSH type of environment, where nearly all game decisions (even down to the winners of battles, etc.) are made by subjective evaluations, and "benefits" are equally intangible.

We're roleplaying-required, for example. We have a fairly ridiculous variety of rewards that can be given out to well-roleplayed characters. If you were to monitor particular players, you'd probably find that some people consistently reap subjective rewards, and others do not. One player might find that to be evidence of "favoritism", but another would take comfort in the fact that we seem to be consistent in evaluation.

And that's assuming there's a concrete reward given in the game. (For a simple example, the character gains experience or gets a bump in a specific skill appropriate to the interaction. You rescue Sword Teaching Guy, he teaches you a little extra about swords.) Consider cases where the result of the character's roleplay is just that the staff chooses to spend more time interacting with this character, because it's fun. NPCs chat with him often. Is that a 'benefit'? 'Favoritism'?

I think you can probably find something along these lines that's "Bill of Rights" material, but as written it's hopelessly vague. You're better off sticking to more concrete things like privacy of RL information collected.