Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Burr · 07-21-2002, 10:21 PM

Exactly so. As you say, the host could have solved to the problem by stating their intentions expressly. In completely unexpected cases, this would almost certainly done after the fact, and if the person didn't change their actions, the host would be well within their mannerly rights to evict the candy-eater.

To make the example even closer to the truth...what if the host and other mannerly people were in the other room at the time, looking for something to eat, and hasn't much paid attention to the candy after first putting it there, and so didn't learn about the candy-eating incidence until 2 months later? Should the host evict the candy-eater for no reason other than not informing them sooner that the candy was edible?

Maybe if they were starving. But not, I think, if they were merely playing a game in which the person who gains the most weight without stepping out of the house wins.

Okay, so in the original example, the candy-eater knows the host MIGHT not want him to eat the candy; he just doesn't believe it, and doesn't care enough to ask. So what if he still doesn't know, but suspects the host doesn't intend for the candy to be eaten.

If I were the host, and I found out the he suspected it, I would have no problem with telling him to get out of my house pronto. The problem, of course, is that that all assumes I have some proof available that he suspects. The only way I could get such proof is if he confessed it to someone, and they told me about it, and I happened to have a running tape recorder lying about in the room at the time of the candy-eater's confession.

The first two conditions are quite probable in a complex-enough social setting, but I doubt the second is very probable even on a mud. I have a hard time imagining that the admins could feasibly transcribe everything that happens all the time throughout their mud, unless it was a very small mud and rather un-dynamic. Of course, I'm still a newbie when it comes to mudding, so please correct me on this if I'm wrong.

And of course, if reasonable proof of the whistleblower's tale can't be gained, then it would be the responsibility of the admin, IMO, to assume innocence in intent, thus reverting back to your own conclusion.

07-21-2002, 10:21 PM	#16
Burr Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 123	Exactly so. As you say, the host could have solved to the problem by stating their intentions expressly. In completely unexpected cases, this would almost certainly done after the fact, and if the person didn't change their actions, the host would be well within their mannerly rights to evict the candy-eater. To make the example even closer to the truth...what if the host and other mannerly people were in the other room at the time, looking for something to eat, and hasn't much paid attention to the candy after first putting it there, and so didn't learn about the candy-eating incidence until 2 months later? Should the host evict the candy-eater for no reason other than not informing them sooner that the candy was edible? Maybe if they were starving. But not, I think, if they were merely playing a game in which the person who gains the most weight without stepping out of the house wins. Okay, so in the original example, the candy-eater knows the host MIGHT not want him to eat the candy; he just doesn't believe it, and doesn't care enough to ask. So what if he still doesn't know, but suspects the host doesn't intend for the candy to be eaten. If I were the host, and I found out the he suspected it, I would have no problem with telling him to get out of my house pronto. The problem, of course, is that that all assumes I have some proof available that he suspects. The only way I could get such proof is if he confessed it to someone, and they told me about it, and I happened to have a running tape recorder lying about in the room at the time of the candy-eater's confession. The first two conditions are quite probable in a complex-enough social setting, but I doubt the second is very probable even on a mud. I have a hard time imagining that the admins could feasibly transcribe everything that happens all the time throughout their mud, unless it was a very small mud and rather un-dynamic. Of course, I'm still a newbie when it comes to mudding, so please correct me on this if I'm wrong. And of course, if reasonable proof of the whistleblower's tale can't be gained, then it would be the responsibility of the admin, IMO, to assume innocence in intent, thus reverting back to your own conclusion.