Administrative Ethics
Adminstrative quandries.
Date: Tue Mar 4 [6:33 PM]
TMC Member: Milar (Email not supplied)


We have been running a mud for 2 years. This is our first mud to actually implement. We still have most of the staff that helped us start the mud. Here is the problem, they expect to be told /asked their opinion of every change and design the implementors choose to implement into the game.

Now they each have their own defined role within the mud.
Ie. Questmaster, Roleplay, Webmaster, and so on. Also they are builders, and we give them pretty much free reign and explicit trust to do their jobs. They have been here so long they have access to shell to reboot the mud if needed.

I would like to know if other adminastrators of muds give their staff the same freedoms. Am I wrong to want to be able to code changes into the mud without asking their permissions first?

I forgot to mention that there was one point that we (the imps) could not make changes no matter how beneficial to the mud, without having to explain and defend the smallest detail.


Milar

Actually, this doesn't seem entirely out of line, in the case of major code changes. It does seem, though, as though it's impeding you to some extent. They may feel the same way - code changes can have impact on quests, on the world balance, any number of things.

I'd suggest setting up a bulletin board or mailing list that your staff has access to. If you use it to post changes , they have a chance to give you feedback that may prove useful, as well as allowing them to let you know when a change will have a negative impact on their work.

MUDs function better when the staff are working together and contributing to each other's work - often in such cases, the whole can end up being greater than the sum of the parts.

If anyone is interested, further information about this "problem" is here:

There is quite more to it than it seems from here.