Member Discussions

My take on administrative ethics as the owner of a roleplay mud.

Favoritism:

Sometimes it's hard not to favor the players who roleplay well. The key is not to neglect those who don't because they may be new to the process or new to your mud, and it's important to nurture the people who are new to your mud because they are it's future.

How To Administrate:

Some people prefer to rule with an iron fist. This type of leadership typically results in two types of players and co-workers. People who resent you or people who will do whatever you say out of fear. It's hard to inspire someone who is motivated by fear. The best way to persuade someone to do something for you is make them want to do it.

Policies:

I played on a few muds that had hundreds and hundreds of help files on game policies and rules that the players would then interpret as they liked and find loopholes through. People all have moral bearings unless they're sociopaths. The best rule is if you think you're doing something wrong you probably are, so just ask.

Noam Chomsky's rule of universality. (I think that's what it's called.)

This is an important one and in my opinion the most frequently abused.

The standards you apply to everyone else, you must apply to yourself.

For example, I was playing somewhere a very long time ago named forgotten kingdoms, and they had a policy where you're generally not allowed to exchange in-character information out-of-character and vice versa. This is in an attempt to curb people cheating by communicating vital information about game happenings on OOC channels and is generally a good rule. Later that day an administrator who was eavesdropping a conversation I was having out of character with another player and used it to condemn me in-character.

Ultimately, the administrative roll looks like it's shifted from 'for the players' to 'against the players' in many cases, which is a real shame.

.... Well you broke one rule with this post. Ignornace is no excuss for not knowing the rules, (the only rule a mud should really have.)

Never put the name of an offending mud into your post.

Now did your post have a point at all cause if it did.... I missed it somewhere.

I don't really agree with that iron fist bit...in fact, it sounds very much like the lamentations of a player who doesn't always get what he wants. Now, i'll concede a bit of ground- Sometimes you get an inexperienced MUD owner who's just a control-freak *CENSORED*, or the polar opposite, a whiny moron who has no business managing anything, but those are typically those upstart crapfest SWR MUD's that claim to have been around a bizillion years that won't ever go anywhere due to poor leadership. To properly administrate, you have to have the RESPECT of your staff and players. If your staff respects you, they'll do what you ask, without questions. It's when your inexperience keeps you from earning respect that the iron fist stuff starts, because it's the only way to get people to do stuff. But then...This entire thing seems pointless...why the heck would you work (or play, for that matter) on a MUD of all things if you're 'scared' of your boss? No one is standing there forcing you to do it...*shakes his head* I dunno...I think people are getting way to invested in these games...if you have a problem with the owner of a game...then QUIT and find one of the thousands of others to play...don't torture yourself by staying somewhere you dun like. But hell, what do I know? My eyes are starting to burn i'm so tired. :P

I'm fairly new at admin duty, but I couldn't resist the chance to ask a few questions about this topic. Our game rules for builders are very clearly stated on our forums and in our building guide. Is not Admin/Imps directly responsible for the building Immortals' behavior and actions? Is it not our job to police their activites? Are infractions of the rules supposed to be overlooked just to keep the builders we have?
Case in point, I had to remove an Imm who absolutely refused to abide by our current rules. As for that Imm's capabilities, he wasn't on except to harass or play with the mortals. That right there was enough to get him removed. He was supposed to building, not killing mortals.
Since he was a fairly new Imm, I gave him the chance to settle down and actually accomplish something, which he didn't. I didn't see any reason to keep him since he wasn't doing what he was supposed to. Does that make me an *iron fist*?

I don't think so. You laid out the expectations and rules clearly from the sound of it, and this person chose not to obey them.

In real life, they're called criminals. ;)

So no, that's just firm guidance. And dealing with staff is different from dealing with players, at least as far as the perception of the 'iron fist/casual foot' style of administration.

I think there needs to be a balance between the "Iron Fist" and the "Best Friend" admin.

I'm an advocate of universal disciplinary actions. I hate it, as a player, when staff get to overstep rules meerly because they are staff.

A shining example of this concerns a policy on a MUD that basically says if it offends other players, and you are asked to stop doing whatever it is you are doing by a single other player, you are required to comply. A religious discussion somehow was started in which things became heated, and a staff member called a halt to the conversation. A little later, a discussion involving abortion was brought up, but because the staff member in question was interested in the conversation, he refused to close the issue when asked.

When things like these were taken to the higher powers, the general response was basically to the effect that, he's staff, and you're not.


It's difficult to avoid favoritism, on any MUD. However, in my opinion, you should never have a policy against it if you are not going to put forth the required effort to enforce it. In fact, don't have any policy you do not plan to enforce. It makes more than just the players you DO punish resent you.