Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-28-2003, 08:01 PM   #21
Molly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Home MUD: 4 Dimensions
Posts: 566
Molly will become famous soon enoughMolly will become famous soon enough
While it is true that a PLAYER democracy is an unrealistic Utopia - (and, I agree with KaVir, a very undesirable one for several reasons) - I do believe that a sort of democracy still can exist within the Administration.

In our mud, for instance, there are three imps, (there used to be four, but two left over the years, and I took over one of the abandoned places). The three of us all have different specialities, and do different work around the mud, but we all have equal power, we all have full access to the shell, and all important decisions are discussed until a concensus is reached between us. If one of the imps should decide to leave the mud for some reason, the other two would keep it running nevertheless.

Even if the imp that has the server, (which I suppose would make him the 'formal' owner) would decide on his own to shut the mud down, it would only take a day or two before we had it running on another server. Perhaps not a democracy, but at least not a dictatorship either.

Also this way of running the mud has worked fine for about 6 years now, so it seems a pretty stable arrangement.
Molly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2003, 08:37 PM   #22
Tavish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 130
Tavish is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Tavish
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Even if the imp that has the server, (which I suppose would make him the 'formal' owner)  would decide on his own to shut the mud down, it would only take a day or two before we had it running on another server.
You would be, for lack of a better term, forced to relocate your game based on the powers of the "owner".  Many muds use this type of hierarchy, which as you stated is not exactly a democracy, but certainly alot closer than the broad generalization that has been used so far through the thread.

Since I'm feeling (and somewhat smelling) funky, I'll take a stab at a democratic mud layout.

The Owner has a shell( an account with a hosting service might be the simplest form for the purposes of the setup), creates a game and draws citizens.  He has complete power over these citizens ( at least whatever is granted to him by the internal game design) and has the power to bend the world to his vision.  At a specified time the Owner position is put up for election where the citizens have the power to re-elect the incumbant or place a citizen into his position.

In the latter case, that citizen is then given the powers of the owner (day-to-day maintanence, shell cost upkeep, everything owners must deal with) and the previous Owner is returned to the citizen populace.  The cycle continues.

Would this make for a good game? I really doubt it. Interesting perhaps on a different scale than is combat fun or are the areas good.  Not sure if that would qualify as a democratic mud, but it is the closest thing to it I can think of.
Tavish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 04:16 AM   #23
Delerak
Senior Member
 
Delerak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Name: Dan
Location: New York
Posts: 706
Delerak is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Delerak Send a message via AIM to Delerak Send a message via MSN to Delerak Send a message via Yahoo to Delerak
Why is a player democracy not possible? Players make the existance of a mud, and imms create the mud. I never understood what makes it so hard, you let your players (considering they are mature and capable enough) to make decisions on how the mud should be ran. The problem with 90% of all imms is they think they are above the players, the wizlists are always caste systems, why? #### if I know, maybe it goes farther back to the first creators of the actual text game, maybe they believed in a caste system. I don't care what the players of Armageddon think of me, I've left but not without stating the way I feel about the staff, which of course will anger most of the staff, and the players, sorry, but I believe that if you can't take the criticism of someone who was repeatedly banned for OOC, for cheating, and for multiplaying and given second chances by multiple staff members, as well as the same person who put up the "Armageddon Cheater's Board" then you probably need to rethink your whole statement of a strong community within your mud. It's not a community, it's players who brown-nose, play characters that live for real life years in a clan that is run by an imm who provides the in character money, all of this at a mud that hails being a harsh desert world, roleplay intensive, roleplay required... no free lunches? I can name safe places in the mud where you can find free food and water in this harsh desert environment. Disgruntlted? No, dissapointed that I put so much time into learning the mud, the players, the world, areas, cities. I can say that it was a good experience, you'll find good players in character sometimes, but I said in my review half or more of the player base are new people just learning how to read and write, using nod, smile, and grin more then the emote command. Yes I was there, and I was banned, beaten, and battered by the staff for my mistakes, nowadays that kind of treatment probably comes rarely, the discussion boards are always open, one can enjoy the luxury of seeing newbie postings every so often, -- well I can't anymore, I think my ramblings have gotten me banned, which proves that I might be feared because of what I know or type, or something. I think I've bantered enough for this morning, though I always loved argueing, especially with admins!
Delerak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 07:39 AM   #24
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Owner has a shell( an account with a hosting service might be the simplest form for the purposes of the setup), creates a game and draws citizens. He has complete power over these citizens ( at least whatever is granted to him by the internal game design) and has the power to bend the world to his vision. At a specified time the Owner position is put up for election where the citizens have the power to re-elect the incumbant or place a citizen into his position.
And what happens if the owner says "Actually, I've decided I don't want to step down - too bad"?

Or what happens if, a couple of weeks into the new owner's rule, the original owner says "You're ruining this game - so I'm going to take over again"?

As I said, it's only an illusion of democracy. The owner can let people act like it's a democracy, but s/he will always have the "true" power.

However if you look at the big picture - at muds as a whole - I suppose you could reasonably say that they are a true democracy. Players can "vote for a candidate" in that they can choose which mud they wish to play. If they don't like it, they can leave (withdraw their vote, so to speak) and go elsewhere. They can even elect themselves if they wish, by starting their own mud.

But within a single mud, it is always a dictatorship. The owner (or group of owners) wield the power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Delerak wrote:
Why is a player democracy not possible? Players make the existance of a mud, and imms create the mud. I never understood what makes it so hard, you let your players (considering they are mature and capable enough) to make decisions on how the mud should be ran.
Because they would ruin it. A mud needs a single common vision to strive towards. Listening to suggestions and feedback from the players is common sense. Automatically acting on those requests, however, regardless of how silly or selfish they are, would destroy the balance and fun of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The problem with 90% of all imms is they think they are above the players
In terms of power and responsibility, within their own realm, they are.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 06:08 PM   #25
Tavish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 130
Tavish is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Tavish
Quote:
Originally Posted by
And what happens if the owner says "Actually, I've decided I don't want to step down - too bad"?
The first owner is the only one that really matters as far as proving there can be a democracy within a mud.  The Owner must be completely in line with the idea, and if voted out must surrender his position.  If you wish to claim that there is no-one that would put themselves in that position, I would be inclined to agree with you and the entire notion could be dismissed.

Once the first citizen vote is held and a new Owner is elected, you have seen a democratic mud.  Whatever the new Owner elects to do is really irrelevant, the citizens used their voice to decide on a new Owner through democracy.   They must then play within the descion they have made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Or what happens if, a couple of weeks into the new owner's rule, the original owner says "You're ruining this game - so I'm going to take over again"?
He could say the new owner was ruining the mud all he wants, but he would have absolutely no power to regain control of the mud unless he wanted to rerun for the office.  Somewhat akin to if Bill Clinton decided to voice his opinion that GW Bush was running America into the ground and since he was a former President he was going take back his power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
But within a single mud, it is always a dictatorship.  The owner (or group of owners) wield the power.
This is where the majority of the problems discussing this comes from.  There are various levels of power that are being bantered about and it is easy to say since players can not dictate what the owner does, a democratic mud would be impossible.  Even within my scenario, the current owner is/could be a dictator to the players.  But he would be a dictator elected through a democratic process.  I am not exactly sure which form of government that would fall into.

Again I am not at all advocating this structure of power, instead I am uselessly debating on whether or not it is truly impossible.  The tried and true dictatorship gives the much needed stability and focus games need to grow and survive.
Tavish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 06:49 PM   #26
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The first owner is the only one that really matters as far as proving there can be a democracy within a mud. The Owner must be completely in line with the idea, and if voted out must surrender his position.
However it's completely at the discretion of the owner as to whether or not they step down. Furthermore, unless they transfer the account itself to the new owner, they'll be able to reclaim ownership at any time should they wish to do so (and if they do transfer the account itself, then once again it'll be up to the new owner if/when they want to step down).

Quote:
Originally Posted by
He could say the new owner was ruining the mud all he wants, but he would have absolutely no power to regain control of the mud unless he wanted to rerun for the office.
But he would if he was the owner of the host. He could just reset the password (or request that the mud hosting provider do so), kick off the old owner, and reset his own privilages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Somewhat akin to if Bill Clinton decided to voice his opinion that GW Bush was running America into the ground and since he was a former President he was going take back his power.
But Clinton couldn't walk into the Whitehouse and kick Bush out. The mud owner, however, could do exactly that. Equally, Clinton didn't really have much choice about stepping down - he couldn't just have said "Too bad, I'm staying - if you don't like it, move to a different country". That's why I said it's only the illusion of democracy - it's only "democracy" while it's convenient for the owner to be so. The owner wields the power, and that is a dictatorship.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 07:23 PM   #27
Tavish
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 130
Tavish is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Tavish
Quote:
Originally Posted by

The first owner is the only one that really matters as far as proving there can be a democracy within a mud.  The Owner must be completely in line with the idea, and if voted out must surrender his position.


However it's completely at the discretion of the owner as to whether or not they step down.
I tried to address this with the statement you quoted, I think we are going to start debating in circles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
But he would if he was the owner of the host.  He could just reset the password (or request that the mud hosting provider do so), kick off the old owner, and reset his own privilages.

snip

But Clinton couldn't walk into the Whitehouse and kick Bush out.  The mud owner, however, could do exactly that.
Once again I think you missed the concept behind my outline.  The owner voted out WOULd pass complete control to the new owner.  He would have *absolutely* no administrative power.  This is why I suggested for simplicity sakes that the server be an account with a public host provider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Equally, Clinton didn't really have much choice about stepping down - he couldn't just have said "Too bad, I'm staying - if you don't like it, move to a different country".
(Time to stretch, bear with me) Stripping away all the beaucracy of the US system, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the US Military.  If you believe in the age-old axiom of "he who controls the military controls the country", then Clinton certainly could have said, "I don't want to leave.  Just try and force me and my army out."  Would democracy in any form be considered an illusion due to the fact that the citizens could elect a maniacal dictator into power?

Regardless, it seems to me no matter what happens when taking the situation to its ultimate conclusion ( which is, in all probability, what you outlined.  Somewhere down the road an elected owner would say "go to ####, its my mud now.") at the first vote and change of ownership the mud would be considered a democratic mud.  It may turn out to be a democratic mud that did not work, but democratic none the less.
Tavish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2003, 07:53 PM   #28
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I tried to address this with the statement you quoted, I think we are going to start debating in circles.
If the original owner can choose whether or not they want to step down - or can reclaim their position at any time - then in my eyes that is not a democracy. You seem to think it would be, as long as the owner agreed to go along with what the people want. Does that pretty much sum it up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Would democracy in any form be considered an illusion due to the fact that the citizens could elect a maniacal dictator into power?
I would say yes, because it's still a government by the people - it's still the citizens who have supreme power to choose who will rule them.

But if the ruler could choose whether or not they wanted to step down - or the original ruler could choose to take over whenever they felt like it - then obviously it would be the ruler who had the power. The ruler could choose to step down if the vote went that way, but it's still their decision, not that of the citizens. Thus the "illusion" of democracy. The power really lies in the hands of the ruler, not the people.
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2003, 03:48 AM   #29
the_logos
Moderator
 
the_logos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,301
the_logos will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by (KaVir @ May 26 2003,07:23)
You can never have true democracy in a mud, only the illusion of it.  The admin can give the power to the players - but they can also take it back at any time they wish, and there is nothing the players can do about it.
Sure, it's possible though it's pretty arduous for what would be a social experiment. Set up a C corporation and issue shares to all players. New players would get shares upon hitting whatever goal the company wanted (time, level, acceptable essay, whatever). The shareholders elect the board of directors, who hires the CEO. If the player shareholders are not happy, they elect new directors who will be more amenable to a course of action desired by the majority.

Not saying it's worth doing. Just saying it's possible.
--matt
the_logos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Review Critisism - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Review Restrictions. imported_Synozeer MUD Announcements 11 10-11-2006 01:27 AM
Last Review for Age of Darkness aodmud Tavern of the Blue Hand 0 01-30-2004 02:09 PM
All these review comments Amnon Tavern of the Blue Hand 11 11-12-2003 02:23 PM
Review Response Songsworn_Draconita Tavern of the Blue Hand 4 10-24-2003 12:26 AM
Review Challenge SoulTorn Tavern of the Blue Hand 2 08-18-2003 06:12 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014