Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Valg · 08-25-2004, 02:43 PM

This is exactly what I was getting at when I talked about the players being able to remove the fruits of your credits, above. I understand that IRE can do so as long as they lay out the terms ahead of time- once you break your end of the contract, they aren't obligated to hold up their end. They can't just walk up and say "We don't like you. We're taking away the skills your spent your lessons on.", but they can say "The contract states that you must refrain from spamming other players, and according to the definition given, you did that. We're taking away the skills your spent your lessons on." (Disclaimer: I don't have their contract in front of me, and I'm making up that clause.) You signed a deal with IRE, and it's like buying any other service from a company. If I buy an email account (a 'virtual object' as well), and use it to spam people, that company can cancel it and not refund my money.

However, it's not clear why other customers of IRE can strip you of the fruits of what you paid for. (No, they cannot directly remove credits. But they can remove a portion of what you used the credits on. See my two posts on page for quotes and a more thorough explanation.) According the the_logos, player guilds are this powerful, and can take these actions without involving an IRE employee. So who protects the customer from the other customers?

It's not hard to imagine a clique of players who use that authority in a partisan fashion- you **** someone off somehow, they start with the docking. Games commonly have these sorts of issues in a competitive environment, but in many games, they can't do much beyond social exclusion and having their character compete against yours.

This is especially a concern when the administrator of that game admits that:

, since presumably the players in the high positions have been around a long time, and are thus reliable and valued customers. Joe Schmoe (a less obnoxious version of Kimberly in a similar situation) who has spent zero or only a few dollars, and is playing the "relatively limited" game, might have doubts about the security of what they purchased.

08-25-2004, 02:43 PM	#82
Valg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Home MUD: Carrion Fields Posts: 643	This is exactly what I was getting at when I talked about the players being able to remove the fruits of your credits, above. I understand that IRE can do so as long as they lay out the terms ahead of time- once you break your end of the contract, they aren't obligated to hold up their end. They can't just walk up and say "We don't like you. We're taking away the skills your spent your lessons on.", but they can say "The contract states that you must refrain from spamming other players, and according to the definition given, you did that. We're taking away the skills your spent your lessons on." (Disclaimer: I don't have their contract in front of me, and I'm making up that clause.) You signed a deal with IRE, and it's like buying any other service from a company. If I buy an email account (a 'virtual object' as well), and use it to spam people, that company can cancel it and not refund my money. However, it's not clear why other customers of IRE can strip you of the fruits of what you paid for. (No, they cannot directly remove credits. But they can remove a portion of what you used the credits on. See my two posts on page for quotes and a more thorough explanation.) According the the_logos, player guilds are this powerful, and can take these actions without involving an IRE employee. So who protects the customer from the other customers? It's not hard to imagine a clique of players who use that authority in a partisan fashion- you **** someone off somehow, they start with the docking. Games commonly have these sorts of issues in a competitive environment, but in many games, they can't do much beyond social exclusion and having their character compete against yours. This is especially a concern when the administrator of that game admits that: , since presumably the players in the high positions have been around a long time, and are thus reliable and valued customers. Joe Schmoe (a less obnoxious version of Kimberly in a similar situation) who has spent zero or only a few dollars, and is playing the "relatively limited" game, might have doubts about the security of what they purchased.