Subject: Re: Excessive programmer privileges

From: [email-masked] (Mitenka Nezhlyudov)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1992 22:58:44 -0700

I'm apt to agree with morpheus. Small amounts of programmers might be more
beneficial to any MUD, as well as easier on the system. Johnny-come-lately
programmers are apt to create half of a world and leave it to rot...or perhaps
to create some "secret" world that nobody but himself and his friends can enter.

Mitenka
(Osiris)

---

From: [email-masked] (Stu Weibel)
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 04:38:09 -0700

> Johnny-come-lately programmers are apt to create half of a world and leave it to rot...

Whew, Pavel's desk must really smell bad with all them rotting bits lying around.

Are some of you folks taking this just a [rotting] bit too seriously?

- a johnny-come-lately

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1992 08:53:59 -0700

The problem with setting up finer distinctions in the rankings between
player and wizard is that it is yet another thing to establish policy
about, make decisions, and administer. 

Of course you have to make policy decisions, but it would be better to
reduce the number of policy decisions that have to be made. ("Should
we give this guy programmer privs, or more quota?") 

In addition, fine grain distinctions in the object hierarchy between
$player and $wiz can lead to a lot of headaches, moving verbs up and
down the hierarchy.

I had a couple of different ideas; they seem to go together, but might
be considered independently:
(a) have only $player and $wizard (with no .programmer bit)
    but CHARGE QUOTA FOR VERBS

(b) move more player-class verbs for building to features.

================================================================
a) charge quota for verbs
The basic idea is to reduce the administration overhead by letting the
individual decide whether their quota should be spent on objects or
verbs. The idea would be that players wouldn't have enough quota
initially to write any verbs. As their quota increased, they could
either build things or write verbs; the policy-makers could decide
however they want which is more socially-redeeming and deserving of
more quota. I would guess that some kind of sliding scale for verbs
would make sense, e.g., first verb costs 5 quota points, second one 3
and then they are 1 quota point thereafter. Of course, the quota
policy would have to be adjusted to take into account that some quota
is spent on verbs as well as objects. You might want to reduce the
quota-for-verb charge to 0 for prolific builders.
================================================================
b) move more verbs to 'features', especially those that 'would confuse
novices'. You can add features as you understand them, remove them,
etc., without sliding up and down and around the object hierarchy.

This is the only simple way I can see of reducing the 'player class'
confusion, which is to let people pick features as they want them.

There are a couple of technical problems with features that would have
to be addressed, e.g., allow features with !x verbs, let features keep
state on players, but I think those are solvable.

This is a poor substitute for multiple inheritance, but I think it
will do.