So, I reread the reddit thread about "wagon-circling" today:
www.reddit.com/r/MUD/comments/8xrnzs/armageddon_staff_circles_the_wagons_around_a/In thinking/googling about this issue, I came across one interesting, while not directly-related, article about how one of the first public instances "rape" was dealt with in relation to text-based games:
www.juliandibbell.com/articles/a-rape-in-cyberspace/What particularly interested me in the article above were issues such as "wiz/imm/staff" interference, players and staff together attempting to diplomatically handle a complex issue (and the obvious difficulty of this), and the decision of whether or not to ban Mr. Bungle. I mean, a lot of shit written about in the article parallels the problems of resolving issues on ArmageddonMUD and, really, most online communities. The idea of learning/growing through exploring these issues is raised at the end of the article and seems definitely applicable to issues on Arm.
I also reread an article written by Sanvean concerning cyber-sex, which is really good, especially considering that it weighs the whole-imms-in-relation to mudsex/favoritism in general. She's rather open about it in the article and goes so far as to discuss specific instances:
www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/issues/issue_43/262-As-Sands-Through-the-HourglassHere are some interesting observations made my Sanvean:
(from her perspective as a player)
No one was quite sure where the staff stood on the cybersex issue, but there were rumors: Supposedly, one set of mansions in the Elementalist's Quarter had been written by a staffer specifically for his favorite player and their more intimate moments.'Here, the implications are pretty clear: even as far back as the 90s, players were suspicious of staff favoritism because of player/staff mudsex.
I leaned on people to not do things like provide blow by blow commentary on the immortal channelGood guy Sanvean: prefers other imms not watching players having sex and making fun of them over the staff channel.
I figured those who wanted to engage in such activities were doing it with other consenting adults.Interesting that the assumption was made that consenting adults were the only ones doing this. As for myself, now, I've learned to never assume that a player is an adult. Even though, especially now, it's likely to be the case... sometimes, it just isn't. That big boobed sexy ass Bynner could be IsFriday, or it could be a 13 year old kid. the distinction is important.
Every once in a while, people's activities would turn from sexy to hilarious. For instance, a female character had received all sorts of attention from one staff member (he had even made a character to play with her) until the real-life gathering, where it emerged that both were male outside the confines of the game. The staff member abruptly lost interest.Okay, now, while that is fucking funny, it also demonstrates an imm making a char to specifically try to sex up a female PC who the staff member assumed was played by a female IRL. That... is not good, especially in relation to the topic at hand. It shows that, yeah, weird stuff can happen. Personally, I find it hard to imagine making a character just to, well, romantically be with another character. And it was a staff member who did this.
Armageddon had always been a bit of an old boy's club, with no codified rules addressing inappropriate activity.
Hmmmmm.
In one place, however, I've had to drawn the line: Players and staff having cybersex together, since that seems to inevitably lead to charges of favoritism.
I think that I recently wrote that it shouldn't matter if a staff member is hitting on or mudsexing a player. After all, we aren't in the military, the corporate world, or anything like that, but obviously Sanvean's personal experience is that such shit should never happen, period. At the end of the day, I probably wouldn't try to argue with her, mainly because I'd almost be afraid to hear specific examples she might cite.
Sanvean concludes the article with a joke about poorly-written erotica and the fuzzy sentiment that collaboraton, even if it's weird or badly-written, is probably more good than bad.
I feel that like, throughout this article, Sanvean is pulling punches. Obviously, she's writing for a broader group of people than simply Arm players, so that's probably, at least in part, why specific instances aren't elaborated on very much. Without context, it would be hard to get into specifics in a way that makes sense to most people. Having said that, look to how Julian Dibbell, in the first article I posted, really goes into detail when it comes to describing specific people, names, staff members involved, players involved - I mean, fuck, he even specifically quotes about one player emoting raping another with a fucking steak knife. He's very thorough in describing the issue at hand and names names.
Then again, her article doesn't really seem like it's an exposé despite the fact that it confirms problems, however vague, when it comes to dealing with player/staff relations.
At the end of the day, you can't help but to view it as:
There were suspected problems before she became staff, while she was staff, and, undoubtedly, there have been similar problems since then. This is on a timeline of life nearly 30 RL years, to be sure, so it doesn't really indicate a trend that's necessarily common.
In the Cabinet article by Lucas, Naathvan is quoted as saying that, what, over 800 years (in terms of days played, by all players ever. source:
www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/64/lucas.php ) have been put into ArmageddonMUD? I mean, that is a LOT of fucking time. a fucking lot. Given the sheer amount of time that people have put into the game over the decades, it should be no wonder that issues of corruption and romance in relation to even the stewards of the game itself have occured.
Instead of condemning the game as an entirety for the times when certain players/staff have fallen short, maybe people should be more like those who rallied against Mr Bumble, or, at the very least, especially if they're staff, be particularly proactive when it comes to instances that could lead to problems later on: whether it be staff member's tendency to act bitey/heavy-handedly towards players or more far-flung scenarios like a staff member making a char to specifically "be with" another character...or worse.
And when accusations like this crop up, there should be way more transparency. Even on the GDB. Relegating issues like this to the request tool, I think, just isn't the best idea except when it comes to currently-played characters/deaths/IC info. Even if someone is totally innocent, issues should be talked out and explained or, I fear, people, you know, like potential new players, might assume the worst, like what happened in the reddit thread. Or, worse yet, fucked up shit happens, yet no-one gets punished for it.