From news.clinet.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!EU.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nac!nntp1.nac.net!crystal.palace.net!chaos Sun Aug 10 14:01:20 1997
From: chaos@crystal.palace.net (Matthew R. Sheahan)
Subject: Lost Souls government system proposal
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin,rec.games.mud.lp
Organization: Crystal Palace Networking
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.231.120.1
Message-ID: <33ec2f39.0@nntp1.nac.net>
Date: 9 Aug 97 08:50:01 GMT
Lines: 319
Path: news.clinet.fi!news.cs.hut.fi!news.funet.fi!news.eunet.fi!EU.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nac!nntp1.nac.net!crystal.palace.net!chaos
Xref: news.clinet.fi rec.games.mud.admin:27976 rec.games.mud.lp:25363

greetings.  enclosed is the current draft of a proposal currently being
worked on at Lost Souls LPmud (lostsouls.org 3000) involving setting up
player government functions.  i'm posting it in hopes of garnering added
commentary from the MUD community at large.  obviously, the injunctions
to analyze and comment on the material are intended for the players and
wizards of the MUD itself rather than you folks as such.  hopefully there
won't be too many references to local phenomena for outsiders to get the
gist of the document; if you'd like anything cleared up please let me
know.  one item in that area: an "incarnos", plural "incarnoi", is the
in-theme name for a player character on LS.

								chiaroscuro

[ Proposal: Lost Souls Player Government System ]

  Version: Draft 2

  The following is an outline of a system being proposed which would empower
players to act as the government of the MUD game world.  Under this system,
wizards would abdicate many of their "law enforcement" duties to players, and
player governments would be granted several abilities within the game world.
This would constitute a radical social change to the MUD.

  A great deal of disinformation has been propagated about this proposal.  It
is therefore very important that you read this document carefully and consider
its implications before making judgements about it, so that the choice of the
MUD in its entirety to accept or reject this proposal can be made as a valid,
educated decision, not a response to false and simplistic emotional appeals.

  This is the second draft of this document, which will pass through one or
more rounds of review and modification before a final draft is to be presented
and put to a MUD-wide vote.

[ I: Rules Changes ]

  These are changes which would be made to the "rules" of the entire MUD,
these being rules which wizards are expected to enforce.

  1. MUD-wide policy regarding "player-killing", or "PK", would be removed.
Wizards would no longer have responsibilities in this area.  Instead, it would
be a matter to be addressed by player government bodies.

  2. The policy of "guild secrecy" would be removed, permitting guilds to
perform membership drives and so forth.  Barriers to guild entry consisting
of secrecy would be replaced with initiation ordeals designed to be difficult
for one player to do for another.  Individual guilds would be permitted to
maintain a policy of secrecy if desired, but this should not be depended on
as a barrier to entry.

[ II: Technical Changes ]

  These are changes which would be made to the technical infrastructure of
the MUD.

  1. Mechanisms would be implemented which permit the citizens of each of the
MUD's "homelands" (those areas with adventurer's guilds) to elect a governing
council for the homeland.  Eligibility to vote would always be restricted to
players of level 6 and higher with an age of at least one real day as of the
opening of the vote, to make ballot-box stuffing more difficult.  Any citizen
could nominate themselves for a council position.  Deleting a character would
void any votes made by that character in currently open ballots.  Additional
requirements to vote could be determined by individual homelands according to
their character; level requirements, stat requirements, wealth requirements,
and poll taxes are some options.  The size of the council will also vary
according to homeland; some homelands may have a government council of one, who
would be referred to as a lord.  Council members would be elected for a period
variable by homeland, usually on the order of one real month; the previous
holder of the office would automatically be entered on the new ballot.

  2. The council of each homeland would be empowered to determine a number of
matters by vote.  Most votes would be decided by a simple majority, though
special topics and some homelands could have other requirements.  The items
which may be decided by the council include:

    a. Defining the homeland's laws.  These would be published in a book
      viewable at the homeland's municipal center.  It is expected that most
      homelands would have an ordinance against incarnoi killing incarnoi who
      are citizens in good standing of the homeland.  There is no limitation
      upon what ordinances a homeland may vote into law.

    b. Designating the homeland's law enforcement officials.  Council members
      may or may not be eligible for this post, depending upon how averse the
      homeland is to concentrating large amounts of power in the hands of a
      single individual.

    c. Removing law enforcement officials from office.

    d. Setting the homeland's tax rate.  This tax would be collected as a
      sales tax by merchants within the homeland, on moneys paid both to and
      from the merchants.

    e. Determining the homeland's immigration policy; i.e., what an incarnos
      must do to change his homeland to this one.  Some options include:

      i.    open immigration (no requirements)
      ii.   approval by a vote of the council
      iii.  approval by a council member
      iv.   approval by a law enforcement official
      v.    approval by a citizen
      vi.   a monetary payment
      vii.  immigration by marriage
      viii. alignment restrictions
      ix.   racial restrictions
      x.    combinations of the above

    f. The disposition of the homeland's monies.  The homeland's sources of
      income would include taxes, surcharges on proxy bounties (see section
      II:3) and other fees for government services, and donations.  These funds
      could be disposed of as follows:

      i.    wages to council members
      ii.   wages to law enforcement officials
      iii.  wages or grants to citizens
      iv.   wages or grants to anyone
      v.    posting of civic bounties
      vi.   maintenance and expansion of government facilities
      vii.  maintenance and expansion of homeland military

      Some of these items may be automatically extracted from homeland funds;
      in particular, maintenance amounts.  Lack of sufficient monies to pay
      maintenance costs may penalize the related facilities.

  3. The law enforcement officials designated by a homeland would be granted
various powers, primarily ones related their homeland in some way.  These would
vary from homeland to homeland, but are likely to include:

    a. The ability to command the homeland's military forces.

    b. The ability to post bounties upon incarnoi.  This would require the
      official to have the amount of the bounty on hand, which would be taken
      as security on the bounty.  Bounties for which the official pays himself,
      possibly from funds voted to him by the council, are civic bounties.
      Officials could also post bounties on behalf of others; this is called a
      proxy bounty, and the official is likely to charge some amount above and
      beyond the amount of the bounty, normally to be given to the homeland's
      coffers.  These bounties would appear at a public notice area within the
      homeland where they are posted.  They would be paid out automatically to
      persons having killed the incarnos designated upon that person's arrival
      at the homeland's municipal center.

    c. The ability to remove his homeland's bounties.  The amount of the bounty
      would be paid into the homeland's coffers.

    d. The ability to set trade embargoes upon incarnoi.  This forbids the
      homeland's merchants from trading with the incarnos designated.  Some
      merchants, such as black marketeers, may not be affected.

    e. The ability to designate an incarnos a public enemy.  This causes all
      the homeland's military forces to attack the incarnos on sight.

    f. The ability to manipulate the homeland's gates or other access
      restriction mechanisms, if applicable.

    g. The ability to revoke citizenship in his homeland from incarnoi.  This
      would be limited to one usage in a given time period (real day, for
      example), to prevent some odd situation where a law official expels all
      the homeland's citizens in order to maintain exclusive control over the
      homeland's resources.

    h. The ability to view a log of player kills involving citizens of their
      homeland.

    i. Other abilities unique to individual homelands.  For instance, officials
      of Camelot may be granted blessings protecting against sorcery and given
      knightly armour, weapons, and mount, while officials of Yathryn might
      receive magickal enhancements increasing speed and dexterity and be given
      a war spider to ride.  These added benefits would often be coded so as to
      make them more useful within the homeland than outside it.

  4. A mechanism similar to the election of homeland councils would be
instituted for guilds, allowing guild members to elect a guild council.  The
guild council would have fewer powers than homeland councils, having no
physical territory to govern, and would mainly be concerned with appointing a
guildmaster and advising him, and removing him from office if necessary.

  5. The guildmaster of a guild would be given powers as follows:

    a. The guildmaster would be concerned with enforcing any applicable
      standards of conduct related to the guild.  To this end, he may have
      various powers of discipline over guild members, which could include any
      of the following, depending on the guild:

      i.   Suspending guild powers for a specified period of time.
      ii.  Expelling guild members.  (Extreme care should be taken that this
        does not come to function as a "free guildstrip" ability.)
      iii. Imposing fines upon guild members, which the guild member would
        have to pay in addition to their guild dues in order to advance.
      iv.  Suspending access to guild services for a specified period of time.
      v.   Killing guild members by means of a simple command.  This is most
        appropriate for devotional guilds and guilds whose trappings provide
        extensive access to their members' physical bodies, such as the
        Paladins of Nyarlathotep (which is not to say that the Paladins would
        necessarily be subject to this, simply that it could be justified in
        terms of thematic logic for them).

    b. The guildmaster would control the disposition of the guild coffers.
      These would contain money collected in guild dues, any money donated by
      members or others, and any fees collected for guild services.  This money
      would be expended in two fashions:

      i.  Automatic collection for maintenance of guild facilities.
      ii. Withdrawal by the guildmaster.

      Funds withdrawn by the guildmaster could be used for any purpose he sees
      fit, including expansion of guild facilities if such is possible.  Guilds
      allied with homelands may contribute guild monies to them to aid in their
      maintenance; for guilds strongly tied to a particular homeland by their
      nature, such as the Justicars of Tyr, this may happen automatically.

  6. Donation items would be altered to reduce the effectiveness of extremely
powerful ones in combat between incarnoi.  The optimum objective here is to
make donation items no more effective in inter-incarnos combat than a mid-grade
MUD artifact.

[ III: Commentary ]

  Sections I and II have been concerned with stating the basic changes which
would be made to the MUD to implement this system, with a minimum of commentary
on implications of these changes.  This section contains thoughts as to these
implications, both positive and negative, and reasons why the proponents of
this concept believe the former outweighs the latter.

  1. Possible negative factors include:

    a. The potential for playerkilling to "run rampant".  Since this system
      would include the "legalization" of playerkilling in terms of the "rules
      of the MUD", the fear has been expressed that playerkilling will become
      the norm rather than the exception.

      Unlike superficially similar systems on other MUDs, this system has been
      designed to maximize the ability of players to make "antisocial" PK, the
      kind that makes the game un-fun for people, an unattractive option.  The
      ability to impose embargoes, in particular, is meant to fill this need.
      Since there is nothing to prevent allied cities from imposing sanctions
      against one another's criminals, a legitimately abusive player could
      rapidly find himself unwelcome in most settlements on the MUD.  Expanding
      cities which are not currently homelands to support these functions would
      make this yet more effective.

    b. The potential for governmental power to be abused, including a situation
      feared where "high-level players run the MUD" against the consent of the
      rest of the player base.

      The voting mechanisms are intended to prevent just this -- or, more
      precisely, to give players the ability to prevent it.  It would be the
      responsibility of players to keep their elected officials in check, but
      they would have the power to do just that.

    c. The potential for players who are very powerful in combat to ignore the
      law with impunity and remain invulnerable to any sort of punishment.

      This is related to both items above, and is intended to be addressed by
      the same means as noted in item III:1:a, and in addition by the limiting
      of donation items in item II:6.

    d. The potential for "lone wolf" players who do not desire to participate
      in a community to be severely penalized.

      It's not intended that it should be impossible to refuse interaction with
      a community, and it's hoped that nothing in this document would suggest
      that.  That said, though, there would obviously be benefits to belonging
      to a strong community, and "lone wolf" characters would lack access to
      these benefits.  This seems reasonable and proper.

    e. The potential for MUD-wide "wars" to break out, causing large amounts of
      wanton destruction and reducing everyone's enjoyment.

      It's hoped that the mechanisms provided for punishing antisocial behavior
      would prevent a "state of war" from developing across the entire MUD.  It
      would be technically possible, however; players would have to take the
      responsibility for preventing matters from degenerating to that extent.
      Furthermore, it's been mentioned that the main reason other MUDs have
      reached this stage is because of the ability of players to attain a state
      of being "untouchable", and able to behave like vandals without fear of
      significant retribution.  This system should prevent that.

      It would also be possible for "wars" to develop between enemy homelands.
      If done properly and within the will of the people of the homelands, this
      isn't necessarily a bad thing.

  2. Possible positive factors include:

    a. The vast expansion of the game's horizons.  Many players who have been
      through the length and breadth of the MUD become bored with the "same old
      routine" of "slay the monster, collect the experience".  This system
      would create whole new sets of objectives for people to pursue -- helping
      build their community, participating in civil government, upholding the
      law, competing with rival communities, attaining positions of recognition
      which hinge on more than killing something -- providing many new avenues
      for the jaded monster-slayer to explore.

    b. The creation of legitimate MUD communities.  Right now, Lost Souls is
      essentially a collection of solo adventurers; even grouping is relatively
      rare.  This system would heavily encourage people to come together and
      find ways of working with each other to make their community work.

    c. Removing wizards from the position of "running the world" and placing
      players in that role.  Wizards should be creating the world, not running
      it.  Under this system, players would finally be empowered to make a real
      difference in the quality of the world by their actions.

    d. The encouragement of role-playing.  Many people see this system as a
      way to help make role-playing a more than occasional sight on Lost Souls.
      As always, role-playing is up to the players, but the system would seem
      to provide more contexts which would encourage it.  One item in this line
      is that having a thief guild would be viable under this system, while
      under our current approach it is almost completely impossible.

    e. Encouraging the education of newbies.  It's hoped that everyone would
      recognize the value of belonging to a strong community.  It's further
      hoped that people would recognize that a good way to strengthen one's
      community is to educate newbies so that they function as good citizens.
      A view of newbies as potential valuable resources would vastly improve
      the initial experience they have with Lost Souls, which is often not
      completely wonderful in our current situation.

  Please give this proposal thought and share your thoughts with others.  Talk
on channels, post on the adventurer's guild board, send mail to wizards (Chaos
in particular).  This system can only be as good as all of us make it.  Thanks!

