Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Molly · 08-31-2003, 05:25 PM

Oh well…
I figure we could hash this back and forth for weeks, without ever agreeing on anything, except for the fact that we disagree.

But I am not about to do that. I’ve made my points of view clear, and I am not about to repeat them ad nauseam.
So. I propose that we instead discuss the topic that the_logos, brought into this discussion, the one about the paedophile on his mud.

Now, I’ll admit that my instinctive gut reaction to this was to ignore the subject, since I suspected that he brought the incident up mainly to divert our intention from the original subject of this thread – namely Builders’ right.

But then I read his post again.

And, if his intention really was to divert the attention – well, he succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned. Compared to the scenario he paints, ‘Builders’ Rights’ suddenly seems rather petty.

I mean, take a closer look at what the guy actually is saying:

Here is a Mud, and not a small stock Mud run by some immature teenager either. It’s one of the big, commercial Muds, in fact the one that tops the voting list of this site, and that he himself likes to refer to as ‘the # 1 Mud on the net’.

Now, this owner of this big, commercial Mud, with hundreds of players, discovers that one of his top staff members is a sicko, who likes to ‘play with himself’ in front of a web camera before an audience of some of the Mud’s players, some of which by his own admission are minors. Apparently there is some hard evidence about it too, judging from the details he provided. So what does he do about the situation?

Does he report the pervert to the Police or the Net Abuse authorities? Judging from his own story - no he doesn’t.

Does he warn his players about the pervert (considering that the latter most likely already has established a network, has access to players’ e-mail addresses, etc)? Again, judging again from his own story – no he doesn’t.

His only action, as it seems, is to remove the pervert from his imm position, while – again by his own admission – trying to be ‘nice and letting him have his old mortal back to log in with now and then’. Leaving him free to hunt down some more prey to his sick game. Not until some of the players protest, because they are feeling ‘uncomfortable to have him around’ does he finally kick this sicko out of his game.

And that is not all. From what it sounds like, he is expecting applauds from the audience – us – for the way he is handling the situation too. Just look at the way he is taunting me: ‘Perhaps you would have kept him on but I sure hope not.’

So, who was he trying to be ‘nice’ to here? His players, the paedophile, or his own wallet?

Again, this is a person who frequently stresses how ‘professional’ his operation is run. In Swedish there is another meaning of the word ‘professional’, but let’s not get into this now.

Maybe this is a knee-jerk reflex on my part, but considering the details of his story, I believe my reflex is understandable. Paedophilia is something I really hate profoundly.

08-31-2003, 05:25 PM	#43
Molly Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Home MUD: 4 Dimensions Posts: 574	Oh well… I figure we could hash this back and forth for weeks, without ever agreeing on anything, except for the fact that we disagree. But I am not about to do that. I’ve made my points of view clear, and I am not about to repeat them ad nauseam. So. I propose that we instead discuss the topic that the_logos, brought into this discussion, the one about the paedophile on his mud. Now, I’ll admit that my instinctive gut reaction to this was to ignore the subject, since I suspected that he brought the incident up mainly to divert our intention from the original subject of this thread – namely Builders’ right. But then I read his post again. And, if his intention really was to divert the attention – well, he succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned. Compared to the scenario he paints, ‘Builders’ Rights’ suddenly seems rather petty. I mean, take a closer look at what the guy actually is saying: Here is a Mud, and not a small stock Mud run by some immature teenager either. It’s one of the big, commercial Muds, in fact the one that tops the voting list of this site, and that he himself likes to refer to as ‘the # 1 Mud on the net’. Now, this owner of this big, commercial Mud, with hundreds of players, discovers that one of his top staff members is a sicko, who likes to ‘play with himself’ in front of a web camera before an audience of some of the Mud’s players, some of which by his own admission are minors. Apparently there is some hard evidence about it too, judging from the details he provided. So what does he do about the situation? Does he report the pervert to the Police or the Net Abuse authorities? Judging from his own story - no he doesn’t. Does he warn his players about the pervert (considering that the latter most likely already has established a network, has access to players’ e-mail addresses, etc)? Again, judging again from his own story – no he doesn’t. His only action, as it seems, is to remove the pervert from his imm position, while – again by his own admission – trying to be ‘nice and letting him have his old mortal back to log in with now and then’. Leaving him free to hunt down some more prey to his sick game. Not until some of the players protest, because they are feeling ‘uncomfortable to have him around’ does he finally kick this sicko out of his game. And that is not all. From what it sounds like, he is expecting applauds from the audience – us – for the way he is handling the situation too. Just look at the way he is taunting me: ‘Perhaps you would have kept him on but I sure hope not.’ So, who was he trying to be ‘nice’ to here? His players, the paedophile, or his own wallet? Again, this is a person who frequently stresses how ‘professional’ his operation is run. In Swedish there is another meaning of the word ‘professional’, but let’s not get into this now. Maybe this is a knee-jerk reflex on my part, but considering the details of his story, I believe my reflex is understandable. Paedophilia is something I really hate profoundly.