Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Traithe · 06-13-2004, 06:01 PM

Hey,

I didn't mean to sound overly dramatic or worked up about it, so in hindsight the word "punished" was probably a poor choice. I simply wished to convey the fact that I worked quite hard at creating a system to track and enhance our voting rates that would be simultaneously ethical and within the boundaries of the current set of rules at TMS - and so I'd hate to see all that work go to waste due to an overly-broad new rule designed to combat the possibility of abuse, when I think that anyone who looks at our system in all fairness could not classify it as an example of such.

Being a law student myself, though, I am aware of the competing issues that crop up when you're trying to word a rule to prohibit certain forms of behavior. In essence you can either word it broadly, to capture as many instances of possible abuse as you can, and then sort them out individually if necessary - or you can word it narrowly, to capture only the most egregious instances of rule violation and allow the others to continue relatively unmolested.

That said, I think Synozeer's proposed clarification:

...would fall under the former "broad" category. In this case a MUD that, for example, spammed voting reminders every five minutes and auto-tagged non-voters so they could be harassed by fellow players would fall under the same rule violation that our own system would - even though it's obvious that the two are really nothing alike in terms of intrusiveness.

In my opinion, the rule as it stands currently is adequate. It would be up to Synozeer to decide what exactly constitutes a "reward". Consider the case above: in the case of the first MUD, freedom from the continual spam would quite obviously be a reward and/or incentive to vote. In our case, however, I don't believe (at least, I hope not, heh) that any reasonable person would argue that freedom from the dreaded two added lines of scroll equates to the same incentive. <g>

Of course, the rule as it stands currently obviously will invite quite a bit of debate as to what "incentives" are, as we see on a fairly regular basis on these forums... it may also involve a bit more work for Synozeer as well, to ensure that things are being monitored to ensure fairness.

So again, in the end my suggestion is really to go with what he prefers, heh. On the one hand, I think that leaving the rule as-is and allowing his discretion to kick in when he decides who's violating the rule and who isn't would be a bit more fair to systems like ours. On the other, I recognize the added work involved, and everybody knows that he's done enough already - so I'm not volunteering him for anything. <g>

T.

Edited to add: After re-reading your post I noticed that I missed a fairly significant issue - trickery and coercion, as you put it. I've addressed the coercion element above; as for trickery, I'm not sure how the proposed addition would do much to prohibit it. If it doesn't already go without saying that such behavior is definitely not kosher, an amendment such as: "MUDs cannot facilitate a player's vote without their knowledge" would likely go much further toward curbing that particular trend.

06-13-2004, 06:01 PM	#48
Traithe Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Name: Kite Posts: 131	Hey, I didn't mean to sound overly dramatic or worked up about it, so in hindsight the word "punished" was probably a poor choice. I simply wished to convey the fact that I worked quite hard at creating a system to track and enhance our voting rates that would be simultaneously ethical and within the boundaries of the current set of rules at TMS - and so I'd hate to see all that work go to waste due to an overly-broad new rule designed to combat the possibility of abuse, when I think that anyone who looks at our system in all fairness could not classify it as an example of such. Being a law student myself, though, I am aware of the competing issues that crop up when you're trying to word a rule to prohibit certain forms of behavior. In essence you can either word it broadly, to capture as many instances of possible abuse as you can, and then sort them out individually if necessary - or you can word it narrowly, to capture only the most egregious instances of rule violation and allow the others to continue relatively unmolested. That said, I think Synozeer's proposed clarification: ...would fall under the former "broad" category. In this case a MUD that, for example, spammed voting reminders every five minutes and auto-tagged non-voters so they could be harassed by fellow players would fall under the same rule violation that our own system would - even though it's obvious that the two are really nothing alike in terms of intrusiveness. In my opinion, the rule as it stands currently is adequate. It would be up to Synozeer to decide what exactly constitutes a "reward". Consider the case above: in the case of the first MUD, freedom from the continual spam would quite obviously be a reward and/or incentive to vote. In our case, however, I don't believe (at least, I hope not, heh) that any reasonable person would argue that freedom from the dreaded two added lines of scroll equates to the same incentive. <g> Of course, the rule as it stands currently obviously will invite quite a bit of debate as to what "incentives" are, as we see on a fairly regular basis on these forums... it may also involve a bit more work for Synozeer as well, to ensure that things are being monitored to ensure fairness. So again, in the end my suggestion is really to go with what he prefers, heh. On the one hand, I think that leaving the rule as-is and allowing his discretion to kick in when he decides who's violating the rule and who isn't would be a bit more fair to systems like ours. On the other, I recognize the added work involved, and everybody knows that he's done enough already - so I'm not volunteering him for anything. <g> T. Edited to add: After re-reading your post I noticed that I missed a fairly significant issue - trickery and coercion, as you put it. I've addressed the coercion element above; as for trickery, I'm not sure how the proposed addition would do much to prohibit it. If it doesn't already go without saying that such behavior is definitely not kosher, an amendment such as: "MUDs cannot facilitate a player's vote without their knowledge" would likely go much further toward curbing that particular trend.