View Single Post
Old 07-24-2008, 05:28 AM   #27
shasarak
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Emily's Shop
Posts: 60
shasarak is on a distinguished road
Re: Triggers, scripts, and bots

Talking about 'botting as "cheating" is effectively a circular argument ("'botting is wrong because it's wrong", or "'botting is wrong because I say it is"). Obviously if the rules of the MUD prohibit 'botting then 'botting, by definition, is "cheating". But that's something that is obvious enough it isn't worth discussing. What you should be discussing is not "is 'botting against the rules?" but "should 'botting be against the rules?"

In Soccer, for example, there is no rule that says players are not allowed to scratch their right ear during the course of the game. In theory, we could introduce such a rule, and, if we did, scratching your ear in a soccer match would then, absolutely and unambiguously, constitute "cheating". But the important question is: should scratching your right ear in a Soccer game be against the rules? To determine that you need to think about whether allowing players to scratch their ears in the middle of the game actually has a tangible, detrimental effect on the game or on the other players. If it doesn't, then it's a stupid rule.

So, if you are going to argue that 'botting should be against MUD rules, you need to answer this question: how, exactly, does a player 'botting ruin the game for other players?

I'm not saying there aren't any ways in which 'botting affects other players; but I suggest that if you look at every specific way in which it can have an impact on other players, there are usuallyplenty of other mechanisms by which precisely the same thing could happen with precisely the same consequences, even though 'botting wasn't in any way involved. If that's the case then 'botting is not actually the problem: the problem is the specific, undesirable effect, and that needs to be addressed directly, in a way that doesn't get distracted by the question of whether 'botting was involved.

For example, suppose that you and another player start playing the MUD at the same time. He 'bots, you don't. After a while, you've got to level 15 and he's got to level 30. At that point, he embarks on a campaign of PK-ing you at every conceivable opportunity, and because of the level-advantage that 'botting has given him, you are unable to defend yourself.

Is this an undesirable phenomenon? Yes, absolutely. Would I, as an admin, want to do something to prevent it from happening? Probably. But the point is that what is problematic about this situation actually has nothing to do with 'botting. The problem is that you've got a level 30 character embarking on a long-term personal vendetta against a level 15 character and making his on-line life a misery. The fact that the level 30 character became level 30 by 'botting is absolutely irrelevant: it would be equally wrong if he had achieved level 30 by playing for more hours in the day than you do, or by joining the MUD six months earlier than you did.

So, if we want to address this problem, what we need to address is: can we stop long-term vendettas, and, in particular, can we stop high level characters from causing low-level characters to have a really miserable time? Focusing on 'botting in this situation is actually a dangerous red herring that distracts attention away from the real problem.
shasarak is offline   Reply With Quote