Member Discussions

Greetings,

I'm sure many people have different opinions on this. I am wondering at what point does a mudlist owner take responsibility for letting muds list and advertise that may potentially seriously damage children. Of course I'm specifically talking about muds that promote the roleplay of rape, and that type of behvaior. It's one thing to make your own mud the way you want. It's quite another to make a sexual predator breeding ground by deliberately refusing to put in safeguards to protect children. Even if the game is not done with that intent. Mudconnector, Mudmagic, and others should there be a line drawn in the sand?

I have not heard Innoculous or Knydig weigh in at all, and would be interested to know their stance on these issues.

My opinion is that if there is enough substantial evidence that it becomes clear that a mud is not looking out for children that does that type of theme, they should be denied the right to advertise.

Vladaar

I sympathize with the sentiment behind your post,
Vladaar. However there are some problems with putting
such a thing in practice.

* Is it the business of a listing site how a mud handles
their business so long as it is legal?

* Even if they break the law, is that the business
of the listing site, or just law enforcement agencies?

* If we conclude that the mud's moral standing is indeed
the business of a listing site, whose moral standards
should be followed?

* If we agree on a moral standard to follow, what standard
of evidence should be accepted? Is one player's say-so
sufficient? What kind of logs should suffice?

My questions are largely rhetorical. I believe the
answers are fairly obvious, and that the policing of
muds' moral standards is for the most part so thoroughly
subjective and inherently unfair that it's just a
bad idea to try to implement.

Even if the idea comes from the most honorable of
intentions...intentions I support...it's still basically
unworkable as policy and unwise as general practice.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

PS AFAIK there is no "right" to advertise here anyway.

First of all...

I have not heard Innoculous

... I assume that's Icculus? *wink*

My opinion on the responsibilities of "adult" MUDs should be pretty well beaten to death by now. Following that same train of thought, I would be in full support of one of two courses of action:
1) MUD lists monitor or audit listings, and categorize them based on appeal. Particularly, we would be looking at PG/R/X ratings to appease most audiences.
2) Preferably, the community would have the opportunity to audit, categorize and police listings in the same way. Similar to the rating system on these boards, members would have the opportunity to cast a vote regarding a maturity level of a MUD. Then, either the MUD's grouping would be weighted by the community's influence, or the community's opinion would be displayed alongside the owner's description.

My primary area of concern (at least regarding this issue in particular), would of course be the ability of a user to locate and take part in a MUD who was deemed as... for lack of a better phrase... potentially harmful. With that in mind, after reaching a certain threshold I would hope that the listing system would either automatically 'hide' the listing (though such a system would be prone to abuse), or notify the site admin for the listing's review.

I do not believe that MUD owners who break the law, damage the community, or specifically avoid taking precautions for their userbase should be encouraged to attract visitors through this site (or any other, for that matter). That includes license violators, spoof MUDs (if they ever come around to existing. i.e. for stealing personal information), and X rated games which shirk on reasonable duties to ensure an adult audience.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

   > Even if they break the law, is that the business 
of the listing site, or just law enforcement agencies?

Legally or morally speaking? I believe a MUD listing site should feel free to do as it wishes, so long as it is not also actively condoning immoral or illegal behavior.

However, I also feel that a listing site, and that site's admin, should *want* to create a great tool via which to strengthen the community, and to create a safe and enjoyable experience for every user.

From your post, I get the impression that you feel the choice is between either the MUD admin exclusively policing listings, or the MUD admin leaving every listing alone (with legal exceptions). However, I believe that the community can (and should) take an active role in determining the authenticity and review of a listing. And I also believe that, if we were allowed to, such a system would encourage *honest* descriptions of games, fair and open administrative policies, and a quick and thorough system through which to report listings which didn't abide by a given reasonable standard.

While I am obviously not speaking for everyone in the community, I do feel that an adult-only MUD should take *some* precautions to ensure it is adult oriented, just as I believe that a G/PG rated MUD should take precautions to ensure foul play doesn't creep into their games.

Likewise, as a result of community involvement, wikipedia is able to keep porn out of its content, making it a valuable resource for individuals of *all* levels. No, it shouldn't be a legal requirement for them to do so, but them striving to be an awesome resource for everyone is a good thing, in my opinion.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

While I think that banning this person or that person from the site would ruin the spirit of the site.

I think that when a site owner/advertiser gets to the point that it is clear they are evil intentions something should be done. Maybe not a ban or stop of advertising, but a clear warning on all their listings. Like Mann_Jess said, put them into a seperate listing. Maybe, the mudlist could take action so that those who see the listing must prove they are 18 years of age, since some of the game admin refuse to do so.

Vladaar

From your post, I get the impression that you feel the choice is between either the MUD admin exclusively policing listings, or the MUD admin leaving every listing alone (with legal exceptions).

With the exception of, say, 1337 Priate MUz: teh
PlAcE 4 ur WaR3z, designed and advertised for sharing
hacks and serials (as an example), I'd just as soon listing
admins laid off the delete button.

It is perhaps due to a bias earned from being banned
from 3 separate mud sites for speaking my mind,
but if I ran a mud I'd rather not have its moral
justification for listing be required by the likes
of Kyndig, Samson, and Lasher. Icculus may be a real
class act when it comes to judging my mud's morals,
or he might not. I'd frankly rather not find out.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

My opinion is that if there is enough substantial evidence that it becomes clear that a mud is not looking out for children that does that type of theme, they should be denied the right to advertise.

Er...no.

Look, I think that any admin of an adult-themed mud that doesn't do some kind of verification is lazy and irresponsible.

However, it is not Iccy's or any other mudlist owners job to take care of my children. Nor is it their job (or yours for that matter) to decide what is appropriate for my children. I get to decide that, not you.

You know, some of us just pay attention to what our kids are doing online. It is surprising how well that works.

Kitkat - is not a fan of censorship -

I am wondering at what point does a mudlist owner take responsibility for letting muds list and advertise that may potentially seriously damage children.

I think that when a site owner/advertiser gets to the point that it is clear they are evil intentions something should be done.

To be brutally honest, it was ever so clearly pointed out to me before in a prior thread that the pure and simple facts of things in this community is that we are violent people playing violent games. If logic alone is put to use, it can be said that any game possessing combat at all is something seriously damaging to children as well as possessing "evil" intent. After all, to even begin pointing the finger on such a thing, you have to clearly understand the motivations and reasons you would have to even engage in combat; real or pretend, on the concious, subconcious, and unconcious levels.

It can be said, and often is, that video games allow a harmless outlet for violent urges. This is due to the entities and constructs within them not existing within the real world in a meaningful context, as we should all well know by now. It's the excuse we've been using all along in order to continue playing and creating such games. After all, if we shoot and kill a man in a video game instead of doing so in real life, that has both kept an individual in society in line as well as saving a person from death, right? How then do you explain any other action persued in a game (text game, of all things) as truly being any different? What scale is there that establishes one destructive action in a game as valid simply on the point of being less destructive than another, or destructive in a different way?

Furthermore, when did playing online games suddenly become an act that anyone of any age is forced to do against their will? I'm still fairly sure that if any of us find any particular game to be dissatisfying, we're able to leave it and never return. If the person in question is a child too innocent or stupid to know better than to go there in the first place, and ends up psychologically damaged or exposed to certain distasteful things, why is it the fault of the game and its creators? Shouldn't it be the fault of the parents who have failed to supervise the activities of their child so as to protect them from such things?

I find it irksome to have to air reasoning that defends the existence and practices of such games and their creators. However, the truth of the matter is that the logic and sense is simply on their side. It's not their fault, nor their responsibility, and the idea that such games should be excluded from the community on the pretext of being damaging to children or possessing evil intentions while all other damaging entries are allowed to remain is absurd.

(Comment added by Lobotomy on Sat Jan 19 0:11:15 2008)

Hooray for the typos. It was meant to say: "To be brutally honest, as it was ever so..."

Post summary: What Kitkat said.

Kit,

Did you see my other alternative I suggested? Maybe mudlist owners could create their own age verification system to prove someone is 18 years old in order to see adult mud listings? That is not censorship, just a safeguard that way.

Vladaar

    > I get to decide that, not you.

Well, yeah.

But what if you decide that your son can play PG rated MUDs, but not R or X rated ones. If TMC allows advertising from an X rated game that doesn't verify age before admitting players, then you couldn't send him to TMC to find his games... or you'd have to set up some pretty nifty software to check the destination of all outgoing telnet sessions.

The bigger question, in my mind, is whether TMC should categorize games based on their rating. Then, you might be able to setup an account at TMC which had a certain parental control content filter on, and your son wouldn't be able to view or login to X rated games.

That puts you in control, when otherwise blocking TMC would be the only certain option. For example, (while I don't use their site personally), I believe the Pirate Bay uses such a system for their X rated torrents.

    > I'd just as soon listing 
admins laid off the delete button.

But what about categorization based on community feedback, as I suggested above? That way, no one is deleted, but everyone has control over their content, and the community is the decisive factor, rather than a single admin.

Frankly, I'd put parental controls on myself to avoid finding X rated MUDs (and to avoid G rated ones), so I think the idea also transcends child protection.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Mann_Jess has the answer I think.

It's up to mudlist owners to rise to the challenge. It maybe more work setting something like this up, but it would be well worth it for the children.

Also, as Mann_Jess says something like that could be controlled by the community instead of one admin.

Vladaar

It would be nice if the mudlists which did the actual advertising of the MUDs made it so adult-themed muds could not be viewed by those running netnanny etc. Afterall if the owner of an Adult themed MUD does not advertise anywhere but MUDlists then it is not really the adult themed mud owner who is attracting children, but the MUDlist, at the very least they are equally responsible.

I know of very few MUDs do not have adult themes. I remember when I played my first MUD and was banned after playing for a year that was a very emotionally scarring experience.

Children are not adept at having things they have worked on for a year deleted all of a sudden. I can't really think of anything in real life that mirrors this except for having a loved pet murdered.

Are not the identities we have on MUDs to some extent extensions of ourselves and our love, just as pets can be?

Dealing with in character death as a child can be very traumatic when you've put hundred's of hours of time into it. Usually such harsh consequences are the type of thing only adults would face. If children were to face these consequences in real life they would have tons of emotional support from loved ones (hopefully), but on MUDs there is no such support for those who have lost so much they cared about.

I apologize for veering off topic, but my overall point is just how subjective the rating of a MUD would be.

Shouldn't any MUD which involves the potential loss of huge emotional investments be rated at least R?

And if that is the case wouldn't that mean that all mudlists should be considered Adult Material except in the limited cases that the MUD guarantees to never emotionally harm any of it's players, even those whose behavior is horrible.



(Comment added by Bberke on Sat Jan 19 0:51:36 2008)

yes I put tons of 's where they shouldn't be, I'm aware.

Cratylus:

I'd just as soon listing
admins laid off the delete button.

Then you can feel free to start your own listing service where you can make those decisions. I'd just as soon see users of listing sites not impose their own will on a privately held resource.

As a privately held resource, TMC is subject only to the policy decisions of one person: Icculus. Whatever his standards for accepting listings are, that's his decision and his decision alone to make. If he chooses to draw input from the community on what they think, that's fine. If not, that's fine too.

Cratylus:

It is perhaps due to a bias earned from being banned
from 3 separate mud sites for speaking my mind,
but if I ran a mud I'd rather not have its moral
justification for listing be required by the likes
of Kyndig, Samson, and Lasher.

Well, to put it bluntly, too damn bad. Listing your MUD on TMC, TMS, MudMagic, or MudBytes is not your God given right to demand just because you're that arrogant. Maybe some day you'll realize that privately held means you don't get a say in why your game is listed or not.

You might also have an epiphany one day and realize that those same privately held resources can ban you for whatever reason they see fit. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but I can dream. You can also run around claiming whatever reason you like for the result you got, but it doesn't make it any more true or false because you keep repeating it over and over.

With that out of the way.....

Personally I could care less what the subject matter of the MUD is. As long as it isn't illegal under the law, have at it. The last I checked, rape fantasy isn't against the law. It may be a bit strange, but it's certainly not illegal. Carrying out an actual rape would be a completely different story, as would the MUD actively encouraging people to do so IRL.

A suggestion though - perhaps the MUD listings could use a flag for this sort of thing where adult content games require people to be registered with the site and make a declaration of legal age or something in order to be able to view that kind of content.

Ultimately it's up to the parents of children on the net to take responsibility for their actions. The government isn't supposed to be your guardian against bad stuff on the internet. This whole nanny-state mentality is just plain wrong. If you don't want your kids to see graphic violence, sexual situations, porn, rape fantasy, or other adult content, then for God sake - MONITOR WHERE THEY SURF!

Of course I'm specifically talking about muds that promote the roleplay of rape, and that type of behvaior. It's one thing to make your own mud the way you want. It's quite another to make a sexual predator breeding ground by deliberately refusing to put in safeguards to protect children.

I agree with the sentiment of your post Vladaar, while in don't really agree with the whole idea of sexual based RP games, i understand that many people gain much enjoyment from creating and playing such games and it becomes an each to his own type scenario for me.

As far as safeguards, my personal opinion would be a simple are you 18+ yes-no click though in the login sequence would suffice, which any decent owner of an adults only mud would want to have and would make auditing a snap if it was a requirement for listing as adults only.

I think TMC has a pretty balanced approach to how it opperates. Icculus seems to have a knack about knowing what is and is not a concern of TMC in regards to the listing.

Jess -

But what if you decide that your son can play PG rated MUDs, but not R or X rated ones. If TMC allows advertising from an X rated game that doesn't verify age before admitting players, then you couldn't send him to TMC to find his games

It wouldn't matter what the muds were rated since I would never let my child play on a game I hadn't checked out myself.

be controlled by the community instead of one admin

Again, why should other people get to decide what is and is not acceptable for my kids?

I do not know for sure, but I would have to bet that the majority of posters that say it's the parents responsibility to monitor the children net activities don't have kids. If they do maybe one kid.

It is next to impossible to monitor a kid at all times, I know I have 4 kids. I go to help one turn the light on for the bathroom, and the others are off getting into trouble elsewhere. As kids get older, it is all too easy for them to use the internet at a friends house, at the school, at the library, etc.

I do agree I was overzealous at first with the denying the game in my first post. I however, am for a system like Mann_Jess suggested.

Vladaar

(Comment added by Vladaar on Sat Jan 19 1:56:17 2008)

While we all hope we taught our kids enough fundamentals in life to choose the right path. Why open avenues for kids, if there are simple methods of safeguarding availble?

A suggestion though - perhaps the MUD listings could use a flag for this sort of thing where adult content games require people to be registered with the site and make a declaration of legal age or something in order to be able to view that kind of content.

I don't think that a mud list should bother with that sort of thing. Many other game related sites carry information about games that are R18+ or PG13+ and that can be viewed by anyone.

I think that the responsibility should lie with the game owner to ensure that they follow any relevant laws relating to games of an R18+ or PG13+ nature, display relevant warnings and the like.

Mud lists already ask that muds follow any laws related to the running of the game and i don't see how R and PG requirements of muds should be any different and it would also make it a breeze to audit this.

Ultimately it's up to the parents of children on the net to take responsibility for their actions. The government isn't supposed to be your guardian against bad stuff on the internet. This whole nanny-state mentality is just plain wrong. If you don't want your kids to see graphic violence, sexual situations, porn, rape fantasy, or other adult content, then for God sake - MONITOR WHERE THEY SURF!

Exactly, as my 12 Y/O daughter just found out the other day, she has lost email privileges for the types of stuff her and her friends were sending back and forward. Pictures of burn scared babies, one of those stupid pass it on emails about some little girl who was raped and murdered and if you tell 10 people her soul would be happy or some other crap.

Its my responsibility as a parent to monitor the types of stuff that they view.

I think that the responsibility should lie with the game owner to ensure that they follow any relevant laws relating to games of an R18+ or PG13+ nature, display relevant warnings and the like.

Mud lists already ask that muds follow any laws related to the running of the game and i don't see how R and PG requirements of muds should be any different and it would also make it a breeze to audit this.

In an ideal world where personal and corporate responsibility was the rule of the day, this would be quite sufficient. But unfortunately reality is different and we find ourselves in a society where it's always someone else's fault instead of your own.

The main reason I suggest setting up an "adults only" barrier is to protect the site from liability in a lawsuit. That way if the member account wants to see that sort of thing in searches and listings, they need to affirm they are of legal age in the country they live in to get those results. No affirmation, no adult site returns.

The game operators are on their own as far as their own liability for possible violations of the law for not performing some kind of age verification.

Your right on protecting oneself about liability this day and age Samson. Everyone is lawyer happy.

As a matter of fact, where I work they got a pre-paid lawyer service so we can get a lawyer without the huge costs you have to pay on your own. Of course we have to pay a small monthly fee for it, but it's worth it to me. They will assist with contracts, and all sorts of things upon request at no additional costs.

Vladaar

Very interesting thread. It seems to ask four primary questions.

1. Are mudlists responsible for filtering listings with adult content?

2. What is adult content?

3. Is a child's exposure to adult content the fault of society, or solely that of the parent?

4. Does a game owner incur responsibility for age verification or filtering to adult content?

1. Absolutly not. Such required censorship would be opening a lare can of worms. It would allow further curtailing of individual and group freedoms, including those allowing me to raise my children to my own standards. That being said, most mudlists exist to connect people to the mud they are looking for, and, as such, mention in one way or another that adult content is present, if that is central to the game. This is a feature TMC seems to use, and one that, while not required, certainly affects the number of people using the site.

2. As mentioned, games include murder, violence, theft, etc. These are rarely included under the context of adult content. Why? Because it can be reasonably assumed that most players with suffiecent understanding to interact with a text game will also understand that it is not reality. Differing content, which a child might not understand as being unreal, through a lack of experience and understanding, might be considered adult content. For instance, saying the Dragon dies is not to be reasonably expected to traumatize a child, though, if it were, it would be adult content. Graphic and interactive experiences, especially ones that create either empathy with the victim, or identification as the victim, on the other hand, weather sexual or not, which can be reasonably expected to affect a child negatively, is adult content.

3. Parents have the sole responsibility for their children, so far as responsibility is a possibility. There are, however, no matter how hard one tries, instances in which specific responsibility is not a reasonable qualification. I can't prevent my children from getting cancer, for instance. There are other instances where, as a parent, choices must be made acknowledging a calculated risk. The Internet, for instance. No matter what precautions I take, software I use, my children will eventually view adult content, even if they do not want to. Muds, for instance, are not filtered with parental controls, and, 12 hours reading over a childs shoulder won't prevent that 5 minutes of inappropriate content. Further, there is no requirement of good parenting that states one must be good with computers to be a good parent, nor should there be. That is life, and any person who thinks they can fully shelter their children, or blames their inability to do so on others, is...defiencent. Why allow a child on the internet at all, then? Because it is both a necessary learning tool, and one required for living in general, and grows more so each year. While certainly one could argue, because I have not listed what precautions I use, that I am a bad parent. That does not mean either that I use no precautions, or that I am a bad parent. The simple fact is that being a Good parent is weighing the effects of actions and their probable results, positive and negative. Too little trust, or too much, will harm a child, as will too much Scrutiny, or too little. My rule of thumb is communicate with them, teach them, trust them to make a good decsion in those areas they have shown good judgement and responsiblity, and watch them, quietly, like a hawk for those many occasions they don't. Let them know there are both rights, and responsibilities to use them well. For the record, I have two very happy, intelligent, well adjusted girls. They make mistakes, and find ways around me periodically, as all children do, but they mind, and make responsible choices. And learn from those that aren't. The way I do it, however, is not the only good way, though others may argue it is not a good way at all. It is not a good way for every parent, nor for every child. It is a good way for this parent and his children, however.

4. Yes, a game owner incurs responsibility for age verifying or filtering content. How can that be, when I have stated the parent has sole responsibility for his children? Because, on the opposite side of that coin, a game owner has sole responsibility for his game. To break it down, and as I mentioned, it is reasonable to expect that even good children with good parents will experience in some way inappropriate content of some sort. Further, it is reasonable that niether all parents are good parents, nor that all children are good children. It is also reasonable to conjecture that certain content *MIGHT*, not will, but just might, harm a child exposed to it. Therefore, when dealing with a situation allowing open connection to massive numbers of people (even if massive numbers of connects may not be made), it is reasonable to assume that some child might eventually be put in a potentially harmful situation. Because this is a reasonable conjecture to a reasonable person, there is a reasonable responsibility to prevent such damage placed on the game owner. Briefly, this may be tried criminally, but probably civily, as negligence through the completion of three requirements. 1. Duty of care. Would a reasonable person have taken action to prevent this situation, or Not taken an action..etc. 2. Breach of Duty. Was a reasonable action or number of actions taken to prevent this situation. 3. Damages. Where damages sustained as the result of Breach of Duty. Damages would include physical, financial, emotional, or damage to property. In short, to prove negligence, you only have to convince a jury including parents that 1 there was content a reasonable person would not show a child, 2 there were reasonable actions to be taken to prevent a child from viewing this content, and 3 there was emotional damage inflicted upon the child. So yes, a game-owner has responsibilty to prevent minors, not just the ones I am responsible for, but All of them, from viewing content reasonably termed adult.

Even more simply stated. The game owner has responsibility to prevent reasonably preventable harm, while the parent has overall responsibility. While the parent is responsible for overseeing the childs activities, it is not reasonable to absolve others from taking reasonable precautions, also. While a parent suing a game owner for negligence should be investigated for the same, to determine if there were reasonable actions to have been taken, etc, the game owner should still be responsible for the content of the game. If a child who is impressionable enough to be damaged by the content of a game makes it to the game, the parents fitness and the game owners possible negligence should be tried. It is possible that one or both be found guilty, in which case the child only benefits.

That is not to say that point 4 is the point of the thread. The first three points seem more relevant. Point four is discussed in another thread, and I mention it only as being causally relevant to this one. The intent, which I fully expect to be twisted or misunderstood in subsequent postings, is to support my claim in point one, that responsiblity does not rest with the mud list, by showing where, in my opinion, and my reading of relevant law, it lies. Both may be mistaken. The intent is not to bring an argument from elsewhere here, but to support, as I stated, my first claim, with the reasoning of the following three, which are all, to my thinking, immediately pertinent to the first, while also being questions asked elsewhere in the thread.

    > Again, why should other people get to decide what 
is and is not acceptable for my kids? 

They wouldn't be making that decision. Instead, they would be making the decision that a game would need your approval before your kids had access to it. For example, usually parents cannot watch -every- movie before their children do. As a result, when their kids want to rent a video, they make sure it is acceptable by: 1) Looking at the rating on the back of the movie, 2) Reading the premise of the movie, 3) Potentially also researching the content of the movie online.

While we have #2 and #3 at our disposal, we don't currently have #1. As a parent, if someday your child grows up a little more and you decide that it's okay for him to play -some- games you don't partake in yourself (hypothetically speaking), you wouldn't find it useful to say that he can play R rated games, but not X rated ones?

Best of Luck,
-Jess

I responded on the other thread... if someone can move it cool but yeah you guys are really against kids seeing this mud. it shows by all the free advertisement it gets on your board lol

vladaar

"It is next to impossible to monitor a kid at all times, I know I have 4 kids. I go to help one turn the light on for the bathroom, and the others are off getting into trouble elsewhere. As kids get older, it is all too easy for them to use the internet at a friends house, at the school, at the library, etc."
So then when they get scarred for life then you are going to sue the game maker not the one that provided internet access to your kid that went against your wishes. Schools have filters, Librarys are public entities that should be responsible for your kids internet safety. Sounds like all you are really saying is "I have 4 kids so i am not responsible for their behaviors outside my house because its hard." Sounds like you should have been more responsible and have had more kids than you can handle?

Crat your post makes no sense:
here is why... are you garbage posts come down to one simple concept. The law. But you dont know anyhting about the law. For example, Who makes law on the internet? Who enforces these laws? Why not have Bberke put his game on a swedish server. Then you can not even comment on his legal responsiblity. What if he send it to me and i host it in the middle east, again you are just going to try and quote US law to us like it matters. The internet is not really owned by one country.. it is kept in the US to maintain the US's interests of the internet network.

So why do you not tell us more how you claim anything about US law on the internet. Tell me the connection. Why are there gambling sites on the web even though the US made them against the law. Sounds like you are trying to ONCE AGAIN lie to the public of the board by telling them bogus laws to try and win and INTERNET argument lol.

Crat your post makes no sense:

You appear to have completely and utterly misunderstood it,
so I can see why it makes no sense to you.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net