| Author |
Rules and Regulations |
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
|  Posted: 31-10-2009 12:36
I understand that a player was docked 1K points by a Wiz recently for giving a Newbie too much information.
I would suggest that this was not breaking any rule but merely bad sportsmanship. I recognise that one of the great joys of the game is 'finding out things for oneself' and giving information should be discouraged, but I question which rule has been broken.
I have been known to joke that there are three rules in MUD:
1. Do not write on the walls.
2. Obey all the rules.
3. Only the Wizzes know all the rules.
Joking aside, it seems that rules 2. & 3. apply in reality.
As far as I am aware mortals have only a few rules written down of all places in The dictionary 'MUDSpeke'. The main ones refer to Loobying and Multilining. I quote:
LOOBY LOO
|verb/0/1| Deliberately to do all the work with one PERSONA, then
collect the rewards with another. This is patently UNFAIR. The phrase is
almost always used as a verb, eg. "He was FODded for looby looing", and
rarely capitalised, but it derives from the 'Looby Loo' character in the
1960's children's TV programme, 'Andy Pandy': she was a doll who was never
alive whenever anyone was around, and so in MUD1 a PERSONA who was similarly
never to be seen was dubbed a LOOBY LOO. Variations include LOOBY-LOO,
LOOBYING and, in BL, LOBBY LOOING (some Americans unfamiliar with 'Andy
Pandy' think it comes from people hanging around in the LOBBY, ie. TEAROOM,
instead of playing). LOOBY LOOing, when it occurs, often does so in
conjunction with MULTI-LINING. It is ILLEGAL, except in certain prescribed
circumstances, for example when it's impossible for you to SWAMP some T
you'd stashed earlier because you've since been badly HACKed in a fight.
Some people labour under the misapprehension that LOOBY LOOing is one-way,
using a LOW-LEVEL PERSONA to do the work for a HIGHER-LEVEL one, but that is
not the case: many celebrated cases of LOOBY LOOing were high-to-low, to
BUILD UP a PERSONA to a LEVEL where it could adequately function as a
KILLER. See POINTs, MULTI-LINE, TEAROOM WARLOCK.
MULTI-LINE
|verb/0| To communicate game-specific information with someone in
the REAL WORLD while both are playing in MUD; playing two or more PERSONAE
at the same time. MULTI-LINING is usually ILLEGAL. It's OK to be in the same
REAL-WORLD room as another PLAYER, or indeed to play two PERSONAE
personally, so long as all game-related communication goes through THE GAME.
For example, if Fred gets attacked, then suddenly from out of nowhere Joe
comes to his aid without either of them uttering a word, it's a fair bet
that in a room somewhere in the REAL WORLD the PLAYER playing Fred is
screaming at the PLAYER playing Joe for HELP. If Fred had shouted in THE
GAME, though, it would have been acceptable. Basically, if someone SNOOPing
can tell you're MULTI-LINING, you are, and if they can't you're not..! Note
that |all| out-of-game communication while playing counts as MULTI-LINING -
people have even been caught using CB radio to cheat this way! The reason
MULTI-LINING is outlawed is because it gives a huge advantage to the PLAYERs
who are doing it: MULTI-LINING killing teams can OFF virtually anyone, and
certainly make THE GAME UNPLAYABLE. Sometimes, observant WIZzes may think
they see MULTI-LINING when it's not there; it might be that you have
arranged prior to playing that you will meet someone in a certain ROOM at a
particular time, or you've agreed on a system of hidden meanings to stylised
phrases (like bidding systems in Bridge). If you try any of these tricks,
don't be surprised if you get HASSLEd!
These are quite clear and it is right that any infringement should be punished.
PSLAMING is also mentioned but this hardly applies these days and the subject of BULLYING would take a thread of its own.
Aside from the rules there is conduct considered undesirable by players as being unsportsmanlike, like SNEAKING and sharing maps, But if the conduct does not actually amount to breaking the rules, it is up to players to deal with and not be the subject of punishment by Wizzes.
I am afraid the argument that it is a matter of common sense does not work as it depends on the player having some.
The question I am asking is: Do we need a set of written rules to which all players have access or are we happy to go along with a system that has worked satisfactorily for over thirty years?
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 31-10-2009 13:06 ]
|
Crazyfool
Wizard
Joined: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 804
From: Llanelli
| Posted: 31-10-2009 14:43
On a personal level, If I see someone obviously giving away information, ie letting a new player snoop them while they play a set (this has happened in the last 2 days) then I will deal with it. I feel it detracts so much from the game that leaving it to common sense will ruin the game for too many people. It also presupposes some form of common sense which a minority of players do not have.
Cf
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 31-10-2009 17:18
Nothing I said was intended to be taken personally nor was it meant to be a criticism of Wizzez in general. I apologise if it appears that that is what I was doing.
I only pose the general question do we want Rules set out in black and white or should we be content only to learn what they are when we are (in SOME cases inadvertendty) in breach of them?
|
Crazyfool
Wizard
Joined: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 804
From: Llanelli
| Posted: 31-10-2009 18:09
No. I didnt say you did. I was just saying that although there isnt a general rule as such, personally I see it as against the spirit of the game and punish it as such. 
Cf
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 02-11-2009 17:48
I've always been of the opinion that the rules of the game should be set out more clearly than they are, especially as many of our rules and customs are rather unusual and not obvious to modern game players. Things like multilining, loobying, information sharing, and sneaking, do not exist as patterns of play which are disallowed or discouraged on the majority of other games. As you pointed out, most newbies only discover these rules after they have already broken them, and they can probably quite legitimately claim that it is unfair to be punished the first time it happens. Perhaps a RULES command and a newbie-prompt along with the other helpful game messages that new personae get?
|
Gadget
friar
Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 88 | Posted: 02-11-2009 17:56
I'd also suggest that some rules that were created when the game was busier are not all that relevant or conductive to play.
It is now much harder to find information out by snooping, observing other players, working together etc as there are usually no more than 3 or 4 players on at any one time.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 02-11-2009 23:01
It only takes 2 people to engage in information sharing though, and they don't need to be playing simultaneously. I think that issue is still just as undesirable as it was, just occurs less frequently.
[ This Message was edited by: Armand on 02-11-2009 23:02 ]
|
Gadget
friar
Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 88 | Posted: 02-11-2009 23:56
Oh completely; I'm just suggesting that there are fewer legitimate opportunities to learn.
[ This Message was edited by: Gadget on 02-11-2009 23:56 ]
|
Turrican
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 346 | Posted: 03-11-2009 10:44
Quote:
|
On 31-10-2009 12:36, royston wrote:
As far as I am aware mortals have only a few rules written down of all places in The dictionary 'MUDSpeke'. The main ones refer to Loobying and Multilining.
|
|
INFORMATION also refers to these.
Quote:
|
On 02-11-2009 17:48, Armand wrote:
As you pointed out, most newbies only discover these rules after they have already broken them, and they can probably quite legitimately claim that it is unfair to be punished the first time it happens.
|
|
And newbies are given the benefit of the doubt, only after repeated warnings do players (typically highlifes) get docked or fodded.
Quote:
|
On 02-11-2009 23:56, Gadget wrote:
Oh completely; I'm just suggesting that there are fewer legitimate opportunities to learn.
|
|
Whatever happened to players working things out for themselves?
|
Darknight
novice
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: 5 | Posted: 07-11-2009 19:32
A big problem I've felt in the past (and consequently, just went with what felt right, and if I get docked I get docked) was the fact that I've not known where I stand - Information sharing is frowned upon, and dealt with a rebuttle so it seems - and purposeful snooping is aswell. So then, what about offering hints? does telling someone they need to consult a certain item in order to gain additional information constitute information sharing? And how about in agreesive conflict, often I have tracked (and snooped) as a means of facilitating combat, and have learned things from this. And on occasion the person involved has not bothered to try to unsnoop/untrack because it would have been a waste of magic - does this also constitute information sharing? It's allways been a topic I have had trouble seeing as black and white.
|
Darknight
novice
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: 5 | Posted: 07-11-2009 19:35
Of course the other side of the coin is, if we do not know where we stand as mortals because of the ambiguity of the topic, is there really unity in policing it aswell? Do all the wizzes have a rule set, or could the possibility arrise that what one thinks is fair, another might think is worthy of docking?
just food for thought
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 07-11-2009 22:25
Quote:
|
On 07-11-2009 19:35, Darknight wrote:
Do all the wizzes have a rule set?
|
|
They have a GWG (Good Wiz Guide)
|
Darknight
novice
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: 5 | Posted: 08-11-2009 13:48
I very much doubt the GWG outlines the intricasies of what constitutes information sharing - but don't get me wrong. Thus far I think the majority of people that have played Mudii (both mortal and wizard) have had common sense and played fairly (with obvious exceptions, which have been dealt with accordingly).
That doesn't change the fact that there are no hard and fast rules, and they are very open to interpretation depending on who is watching. Crazy's example I'm sure was a deliberate act of 'snoop me and I'll show you what I do', and i'd agree that's not a fair way to help a newbie. Had he watched my fight a few weeks ago, I do wonder what his oppinion of that would have been, because in many ways it was the same outcome under different circumstances. Like I said - food for thought.
|
Crazyfool
Wizard
Joined: Sep 16, 2001
Posts: 804
From: Llanelli
| Posted: 08-11-2009 18:07
You left the tearoom DK? Only kidding 
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 08-11-2009 18:07
Snooping is an aggressive action and should be treated as such. If for example, someone is attacking you over and over, and you repeatedly flee on purpose to give him points instead of trying to get away, that would be considered cheating. I think allowing someone to snoop you is similar. You have an obligation to prevent them learning game secrets just as you have an obligation not to deliberately flee points to someone. If I'm being snooped and am not in a position to stop the snoop I try not to do anything too "clever" that might give info away. Plus there are ways to stop snoops that don't consume magic.
|
Turrican
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 346 | Posted: 08-11-2009 19:00
Quote:
|
On 07-11-2009 19:32, Darknight wrote:
A big problem I've felt in the past (and consequently, just went with what felt right, and if I get docked I get docked) was the fact that I've not known where I stand - Information sharing is frowned upon, and dealt with a rebuttle so it seems - and purposeful snooping is aswell. So then, what about offering hints?
|
|
Players definition of a hint seems to depend on their experience, i.e. if they are told exactly what to do they think that constitutes a hint. My definition would be, its not a hint if it removes all doubt they will work it out (particularly in the next 30 seconds!).
Quote:
|
On 08-11-2009 13:48, Darknight wrote:
Had he watched my fight a few weeks ago, I do wonder what his oppinion of that would have been, because in many ways it was the same outcome under different circumstances. Like I said - food for thought.
|
|
Did your fight last for an hour?
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 09-11-2009 08:22
Quote:
|
On 08-11-2009 18:07, Armand wrote:
Snooping is an aggressive action and should be treated as such. If for example, someone is attacking you over and over, and you repeatedly flee on purpose to give him points instead of trying to get away, that would be considered cheating. I think allowing someone to snoop you is similar. You have an obligation to prevent them learning game secrets just as you have an obligation not to deliberately flee points to someone. If I'm being snooped and am not in a position to stop the snoop I try not to do anything too "clever" that might give info away. Plus there are ways to stop snoops that don't consume magic.
|
|
What you are saying is that it legal for someone to snoop on you (The means and the command to do so are provided by the game - so it must be) but if you are the victim of snooping you have a duty to try and put a stop to it and modify your play, in case you inadvertently share information. This is pure Halism. I come back to my main point. Where is your authority that this is cheating? You may not like it when you are snooped upon, and want to do something about it but that is personal.
And I always flee on purpose. Though most of the time I seem to leave it too late.
[ This Message was edited by: royston on 09-11-2009 08:57 ]
|
Hawumph
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 368
From: Somewhere you don't want to go!
| Posted: 09-11-2009 12:43
Quote:
|
On 09-11-2009 08:22, royston wrote:
This is pure Halism.
|
|
He does tend to take a Halistic approach to things, doesn't he?
_________________
How 'bout them transparent dangling carrots? It's not fair to deny me, the cross-eyed bear that you gave to me. You otter know!!!
|
Tzunami
cabalist
Joined: Oct 28, 2001
Posts: 36
From: 97005
| Posted: 09-11-2009 14:15
I have an idea for a game show.
We take 100 random people off the street (we don't literally grab them and throw them in vans, although if it wasn't for the legality this would be an excellent idea, and when I say random I mean... a selection of the public chosen without prejudice not people with three eyes, 6 legs etc.. although again, if we can find people with these traits it would be a bonus).
We put them in a room in front of this glorious text-based game of ours and with no outside guidance we see how long it would take for them to work out the puzzle known as "the druids".
I predict we would have 100 potential suicides on our hands (again, great for tv).
|
Turrican
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 346 | Posted: 09-11-2009 16:32
Quote:
|
On 09-11-2009 14:15, Tzunami wrote:
We put them in a room in front of this glorious text-based game of ours and with no outside guidance we see how long it would take for them to work out the puzzle known as "the druids".
|
|
It's not that bad, if you use a certain item and a bit of experimentation.
Quote:
|
I predict we would have 100 potential suicides on our hands (again, great for tv).
|
|
Natural selection.
|
