nu.kanga.list.mud-dev

8142: [MUD-Dev] Re: Affordances and social method (Was: Re: Wi

In message:  <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980807214153.12340B-100000@sol23.cs.wisc.edu>
             Dan Shiovitz <dbs@cs.wisc.edu> writes:
>On Fri, 7 Aug 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 03:46:36 -5 
>> Jon A Lambert<jlsysinc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[..]
>> > Nod.  The availability of @gag did not prevent the Mr. Bungle
>> > incident.  Nor would @gag or "squelch" affect third party
>> > observation of such activity.
>> 
>> A thought:
>[..]
>>   As the number of gags increased on a player, the distance
>> propagation of his speech, or of his proxies speech would be decreased
>> proportionally.  Ultimately perhaps he would have to shout to be heard
>> by someone standing immediately beside him.
>
>If you're going to do something like this, why not just let people
>vote to prevent players from speaking at all?  Say, if 10% of the
>people on the mud (minimum 10) vote to @gag someone, that person gets
>gagged for the next thirty minutes or until a wizard ungags them.

That's fairly simple: speed of response.  Your personal gag gets
the problem solved as far as you're concerned, and the effect it
has on other folks is (as far as you're concerned) incidental.
However, organizing 10 people to gag someone makes these nuisances
pretty much unavoidable for the 15 mins or an hour that it takes
to convince people to gag him... unless you have people who are
voting site unseen, which just means that your one person's personal
gag has escalated to a game-wide ban with rubber stamps.

- Alex