Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

As long as the rules of the game apply equally to everyone, and the rules are made clear to players in advance, then I believe such a game is fair. Assuming the rules are made clear (or at least available) in advance, a player who does not feel they are fair should not play in the first place.

Unfairness is when there are secretive things happening behind the scenes that you do not know about. For example, when there are some people currying favor with admins to help them out, or there are people who get "wink wink nudge nudge" benefits because they bought a lot of t-shirts or other merchandise (something that happens a lot), or things of that nature.

By any other standard, pretty much no game in existence is fair. Every person has their own areas where they possess a disproportionate advantage that no game can nullify. Is it fair that basketball rewards tall people over short people? Is it fair that poker rewards richer people that can bully poorer people (through betting) into folding a good hand? By some definitions of the word fair, the answer would be no. But that is not what we mean by "fair" when talking about games.

For games, what people generally mean by fairness is that the rules are applied equally to all players. That is true in basketball, poker, or pay-for-perks muds. As long as people know the rules, and rules are the same for everyone, for all intents and purposes that game is fair.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Could you explain how you know that this is "something that happens a lot"? It doesn't seem supported by anything else you said, but you're clearly making a positive assertion.

If anything, I'd expect that problem to be worse in games where large sums of money routinely change hands-- some pay-for-perks games have characters with $1000 US or more invested in them, according to players of those characters that have posted here. The economic incentives seem much more clear-cut, especially when games are based on a for-profit model, vs. the non-profit model common to free games.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

In a pay-for-perks game, all financial transactions are above board and known about in advance. Players know exactly what other people can get by paying money, and can make their decision to play or not play well in advance.

But in games that claim to be totally non-commercial, but sell merchandise behind the scenes, nobody really knows what is going on. There is no in-game evidence of merchandise sales, so people have no idea who has done what. Many people who pay money to a game inevitably expect SOMETHING for their money and "generosity", and admins frequently feel gratitude for these purchases (obviously), and together this commonly lends itself to favoritism for people who support the game through merchandise sales (the same goes for "donation" sytems, by the way).

An explicit, known system that is published to players in advance is much clearer and less prone to abuse than a secretive system that is not described explicitly in advance. Furthermore, since this is all on-the-side rather than an explicit, clear system, players are not able to factor it into their initial decision to play the game or not.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Positive assertions are a slippery slope if someone doesn't want to name names, but I could offer a few from the player perspective. I know that being a content-contributor can engender winks and nudges, as could other behavior that encourages GM favor. The rewards may not always manifest in game content, cash-value perks, or other tangible rewards (although they do), but 'one good turn deserves another' happens frequently enough as to deserve not being dismissed outright.

I've been handed items, given useful information or insights, had a blind eye turned to mild infractions, and seen adjudicated player disputes swing my way, even if the fault for the dispute was shared. It definitely happened, and was definitely denied and discouraged and punishable in the official policy docs. So long as an admin sees the benefits of doing so outweighing the consequences, it's an understandable temptation, and in some cases, a smart business dealing, if a game is getting a free tangible product in exchange for thirty seconds worth of typing (>give character thingy, or >inform player of event).

It still is probably not a 'fair' practice, as defined here.

Human nature is a pretty good indicator, too. As much as we'd like to believe that 'under the table', 'a handshake arrangement' and 'you wash my back, I wash yours' aren't part of a business model, the fact is, they are. Presuming that commercial and non-commercial muds are somehow exempt from this common business practice seems a lot harder to swallow, even if I didn't know for a fact it occurs.

Sometimes, it's just good PR to pretend like such things don't happen,

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

1) I'm not seeing where you have evidence that this is "something that happens a lot". You previously asserted this directly. Could you be more clear? Or is this pure conjecture?

2) Also, why does having an official system where thousands of dollars change hands preclude corruption? In both cases, you're supposing a staff member is willing to violate their policies. Why would a staff member be willing to do this for T-shirt money, but not perks money, especially given the larger sums involved?

3) Don't merchandise-based games have an explicit, known system, where you give them money and get a textile-based good, rather than a virtual good? What is the difference that causes one administrator to be prone to bribery but not the other?

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

That's a different argument than the one Threshold is making. He's making the argument specifically that the pay-for-perks model (sale of virtual goods) precludes administrator corruption, which is "common" in donation or merchandise models (sale of physical goods).

I mean, if you walked into a building and claimed "Employees here are commonly embezzling.", I don't think it's out of line to treat it as an accusation, whether or not it's aimed at a specific or named individual.

I'm making the argument that it doesn't matter what you sell. I'm also conjecturing that the temptation to accept bribes would increase as the size of the bribe increases. In other words, someone with $1000 worth of perks would be more likely to demand (and receive) special treatment than someone with a $12 T-shirt.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

The person who paid the $1000 for in game perks (a highly unusual and extreme example, but I'll go ahead and stick with it) already got $1000 of in game perks. The person who bought the tshirt (or ten tshirts) got nothing in game. Yeah, they got a shirt, but most games that sell merchandise (or take donations) expressly ask people to buy them to help the mud. So a significant reason for the purchase is to help the mud, not just to have a tshirt (or other merchandise). That's where the expectation of a quid pro quo comes from.

But I do agree with you on one point: it doesn't matter what you sell. As soon as money changes hands, it is a commercial operation and it carries with it all the risks and possibilities for abuse therein. Though I do feel an explicit system of directly paying for perks at least means everyone knows exactly what is for sale, and how much it costs, and can decide IN ADVANCE if that is acceptable to them. Merchandise sales, donations, etc. hide things a bit more and do not give the player the information they need to make an informed playing choice. And that is what makes that a little less "fair" in my view.

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

This is all an assumption on your part. One person got a virtual perk, the other got a T-shirt. You claimed that corruption in one case was "common" (known, not speculated), and in the other it was not. You've provided nothing at all to back that up.

Someone buying a T-shirt knows exactly what shirt is for sale, how much it costs, what size and color it is, and can also decide in advance if that is acceptable. The purchaser is explicitly told it will have no impact on their gameplay. What information is hidden?

(If your T-shirt manufacturers do not provide this information to customers, and instead send them randomly chosen shirts, I can make recommendations.)

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

Agreed. Furthermore, if the only things you can purchase are mugs, t-shirts and the like, then that would suggest to me that the mud owner doesn't want money to impact the gameplay. If they were willing to sell secret perks, then surely they would also be willing to sell public ones?

Re: What Does "Fair" Mean?
 

By this, I'm thinking you mean directly affect gameplay, in that said t-shirt/mug sales might be affecting gameplay in general by making it possible.
More accurately said, the mud owner (aside from money issues) could just as easily be avoiding the -appearance- that money affects gameplay, which could happen even if no money changes hands.

I don't see this as necessarily true, nor a logical conclusion. I can easily see a secret policy being enacted because making this a public policy might change the complexion of the game in a way that might cause players to leave. It may not be the point Thresh is trying to make, but I've seen enough public PR-based stances compromised privately that I'm not that naive.