|
Arguing by insults gets us nowhere. Arguing that Matt can't write a decent MUD is even worse than that because, clearly, enough customers disagree that he can make a living. You may find him abrasive, obnoxious, and reprehensible, but that has nothing to do with the MUD in question. Leave the Logos out of it.
Now I'll take a crack at explaining the MUD.
Guild leaders have the power to kick someone out of a guild. If the person so kicked is below a certain rank in the guild, he or she loses access all guild skills. Those who are still of the apprentice rank get a full refund of lessons whenever they leave a guild, whether by choice or by executive outguilding. Once past apprentice rank, anyone who leaves a guild, either by quitting or by being given the boot, receives back only a portion of the lessons invested. At a higher rank, a character who is ousted from a guild or who chooses to leave it retains all class skills. Should the character quit class, a different process, it loses all class skills and receives that percentage of lessons back.
Clearly there is a window in which players can strip other players of what they have earned through an investment of time, money, or both. However, the scope of those who are able to do this is limited. The guildmasters are democratically elected by guild members, and the guildmaster in turn appoints secretaries. GM and secretaries have the power to outguild. Since one is chosen by the guild as a whole and the others are chosen by this trusted person, one can hope that all these individuals are worthy of the powers granted to them, much like we hope that our government officials, both elected and appointed, are doing their jobs right.
Is there potential for abuse? Yes. Someone could arbitrarily punish another player with an outguilding for no reason at all. In practice, however, outguildings are very, very rare. It is far more common for a character unsuited to a guild to quit by choice, usually before they incur a loss of lessons in so doing. When Matt says that the admins don't interfere, it's because they don't have to. Players self-police enough that it simply isn't a problem.
This is Matt's assertion, and I second it. The burden of proof is on you to find evidence of abuse of the system. As far as I have seen, it has worked quite well as a system of justice and enforcement. It is extremely effective when used, but it rarely has to be used. More than anything else, outguilding is a deterrent and a punishment of last resort. Find examples of when the power has been misused, not when it might be misused, and you have a case.
On another note, the worry about snooping on tells is understandable but unjustified. The ability is costly enough to prevent casual use. It is always clear when it might be in use, though not necessarily when it is currently in use. Thus, one can avoid sensitive tells (incoming and outgoing), and use the more private message system instead if necessary. I have seen the ability come up in diplomatic settings, where incautious individuals end up giving away organization secrets to more canny counterparts on opposing sides, and nowhere else. It's scary, but it's not as much of a potential abuse as it may first appear, especially when players are well aware of when and how their conversations may not be entirely private.
Finally, your argument of making a case in court over lost credits is ludicrous. The disclaimer states that "your actions have consequences, and the actions of others can result in consequences for you." Your credits are guaranteed, and they are never stripped in the absence of criminal activity. What you do with those credits becomes your problem.
|