Message 1 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Mar 13 16:22:17 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Any comments? There have been no comments sent to this list at all. Soon I will go ahead and sign it and see if it flies. I won't be closed to changes at that point, but the difficulty of making them is always higher if you wait. Please speak now if you have something to say. --M -------------------------- Message 2 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Mar 13 19:54:36 1994 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Holes! I see some vagueness that needs to be cleared up: > Second player creation will no longer require special approval from a human. A > mechanism will be created whereby any primary or secondary, non-shared, > non-guest player can directly control the creation and elimination of a second > character; such second characters will count against the quota of the primary > character, and so cannot be created if the player has insufficient quota. [Ick linebreaks] This paragraph is totally vague to me. As I read it, any player can control creation and elimination of ANY second character. You need to make this an iron-clad statement here. I know what you mean, but that is NOT how it reads. You say `a second character' but you need to specify maybe `second character registered to the player attempting to create or destroy it'. Or somesuch. Your registered guest stuff is interesting. However, I don't see it being very practical. Occasionally, I've seen email become very slow. Like hours and even days in delivery time as nodes and sites go up and down. With character requests this isn't a problem, but when someone wants to log on as a guest, e wants to do it now! Your 4 hour limit from the request may get fizzled away because of email delivery problems, as I mentioned above. Initial comments... Dred -------------------------- Message 3 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Mar 14 13:03:08 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Holes! Dred, I've made a change to the paragraph about secondary characters. I tried to avoid being too specific in order not to tie the hands of the implementors, but I think my intent is clear enough that they will know what I mean. Tell me if you don't think this is so. --M -------------------------- Message 4 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Mar 14 13:13:29 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Dred's concerns about 4 hours As for e-mail slowness, I have these general comments to make about the reason this petition exists: - We have independent reasons to cut down on the total number of people using LambdaMOO at one time. I'm not saying that guests should bear the full brunt of this, and this is not an attempt to make them do it. But I don't personally feel bad if "sometimes a guest can't get through". - If the mail slowness is an isolated event, then it just means that on some particular day they won't be able to connect as guest. That doesn't seem terrible. If the mail problem is a systemic thing, then it is probably part of some larger connectivity-vs-cost trade-off that someone made, and now they are paying the price. I'm sorry, but I think that is not our problem to solve. - To my ear, what you are effectively saying is that people who are farther away (by at least some metric of farness involving "time to deliver mail") will have a harder time coming to visit. I put up with this constraint a lot IRL and in VR communities (e-mail, telnet, etc.) around the world already. I think it lamentable, but acceptable, if it happens here. - If you are only asking that the 4 hours be changed to something else, then propose a number. I would also like to hear from others who think 4 is either right or wrong, or whatever Dred proposes is either right or wrong. It's hard to know what the right thing is if only two people speak up. I also have some observations about my proposed choice of 4 hours. That number can be changed, but please don't think I pulled it out of thin air. - It must time out sometime. If we grant an account that lasts a huge long time, then it is a lot like a real account. I don't want that. - It is possible that the "time until connect" should be mediated differently than the "time after connect". e.g., the password might start working any time in the next n (8? 24?) hours and be good for reconnects any time for the next m (4? 2? 1?) hours after that. - At the meta level, I don't want these guest accounts, because you call and get a "reservation", to acquire a magical status where the absolute right to access is guaranteed and next guests start complaining that they asked for a reservation and then lag wouldn't let them in or something. Implicitly, in defending the case of slow mailers, you are creating a sense of the "right" to connect, and I fear that is a slippery slope I don't want to be sitting upon. -------------------------- Message 5 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Mar 14 19:45:28 1994 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Dred's concerns about 4 hours Cool. The `their own' instead of `a' is all that part needed. Considering problems with other ballots' intent and implementation its important to plug holes..Anyway, I really really like the auto second char part of this petition. I bet it would zing through as a standalone. (If you want to break it up, and deal with the guest restrictions as a separate petition, I'll offer to take the 2nd char part.) It just occured to me that it might be better as a command invoked -after- logging in rather than the login screen. Otherwise, you'll need lots of security checks in a cumbersome command, (such as `@create-2nd for Dred named Drad'). You need to know who it is in order to check quota, after all. > From: Mickey (#52413) > [here Mickey states his arguments concerning slow email] I see your point. It really shouldn't be our problem to fix. But I'd rather not -add- to the problem. Creating this mechanism would indeed single out those unfortunate few. Tough luck and all that. > - It must time out sometime. If we grant an account that lasts a > huge long time, then it is a lot like a real account. I don't > want that. Definitely it must time out. Otherwise it is like a real account. Or we'll have the case where people will hand out the password to their buddies and we'll have no way of knowing if it's the original person or not. > > - It is possible that the "time until connect" should be mediated > differently than the "time after connect". e.g., the password > might start working any time in the next n (8? 24?) hours and be > good for reconnects any time for the next m (4? 2? 1?) hours after > that. > Now this I could live with. After requesting a guest account, the player has 24 hours to make a first connection. After that first connection, they have 4 hours with which to use it. > - At the meta level, I don't want these guest accounts, because > you call and get a "reservation", to acquire a magical status > where the absolute right to access is guaranteed and next guests > start complaining that they asked for a reservation and then lag > wouldn't let them in or something. Implicitly, in defending the > case of slow mailers, you are creating a sense of the "right" to > connect, and I fear that is a slippery slope I don't want to be > sitting upon. I agree with you 100% here. I'm still not sure I like this whole idea. I like aspects of it. I do like ensuring that guests have a valid email. It's a sanity check that is likely to scare off a lot of the annoying guest-types. But I'm just not sure if the hassle and time delays introduced are worth all that. Heck, for all that hassle, they could be getting a regular player. If *P:zpg and this one pass, you can be sure that people will be getting registered guest accounts when they can't get player accounts. Ick. Perhaps you need a limit on the total amount of guest accounts in use at any one time? What number? Hrm. Yet another restriction... Dred -------------------------- Message 6 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Mar 14 23:52:14 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Dred's second character issues Gads, I had always assumed the second character creation would happen after you log in. I wonder what gave you the idea that it would be an unlogged command. Hmmm... I'll have to think about how to fix this. Actually, if you want to pick up this part of the petition and run it through separately, I'm sure it has at least as good a chance as the whole petition of mine. If I see you do that, I'll remove the relevant part of my petition. --M -------------------------- Message 7 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 15 00:16:38 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Revised timetable I changed it to say: Unless guest access has been restricted (for some reason beyond the scope and intent of this petition), characters given this form of guest access will be sent, via e-mail, a password that, when used with the e-mail information given before, can be used any time within the next 24 hours. (This is intended to accomodate slow e-mail links.) The details of the command are left to the wizards implementing this, but might be something like: guest joe@foobar.com xyzzy Actual admission of a guest to the system is subject to normal load restrictions (limits on total usage due to lag, limits on number of guest users connected at once, etc.) This petition neither seeks to establish such restrictions nor to override them. The guest password expires 2 hours after the first attempt to connect, whether or not that attempt is successful. During that 2 hours, the password may be used repeatedly by the guest to reconnect. (This creates a time window during which the guest can easily re-connect in case of disconnection. If conditions permit, the guest may remain connected longer; no automatic booting is implied. But after the 2 hour window, a new password must be requested.) -------------------------- Message 8 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 15 07:51:48 1994 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Logged in? I assumed you meant that the second char bit was from the login screen because: > The ability to do "connect guest" is removed. > > II. Replacements for Traditional Guest Connection Mechanism > > In place of "connect guest", the following two mechanisms are added: > > A. Streamlined Second Character Creation Reading that straight, it seems that you want to replace the connect Guest with those two mechanisms. Since connect guest is at the login screen, it follows in my mind that you want the new commands there as well. (My interpretation of replacement). > used repeatedly by the guest to reconnect. (This creates a time window > during which the guest can easily re-connect in case of disconnection. If > conditions permit, the guest may remain connected longer; no automatic > booting is implied. But after the 2 hour window, a new password must be > requested.) I'm a little unclear. So to remain online longer than 2 hours they must request a new password? Actually, I don't think that's what you meant. I think you meant that they can stay online for however long they wish. I'm wondering though, if this means they can stay on indefinitely. What if a person idles all day on a guest account? Presumably they can stay on much longer that way. As of now, guests who have been online for a long time get booted if all the guests are taken and another person tries to log in as one. Will that feature be eliminated? Or does this mean lots and lots of guests? Also, you say request a new password after 2 hours. Can they do that while online? And presumably, again, extend their stay this way indefinitely? Just more thoughts. heh Dred -------------------------- Message 9 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 15 09:38:21 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Logged in? Presently a guest can idle all day. I didn't intend to change that. Guests only get bumped if load demands. (Maybe that is "always" now, but not by design--only by accident.) The text specifically says they are not auto-booted, but I meant that to mean "due to this set of rules". I meant the biz about prevailing conditions, etc. to mean that they could get auto-booted for unrelated reasons. I will work on this more tonight. Presently any guest who is booted can instantly reconnect as another Guest. Allowing a guest to instantly reapply (even connected) will not make the present situation any worse. If we decide one person is hogging things, we can make rules to limit how much any one person can do this before getting an account, or how often, or whatever. I actually think only one live guest password at a time is fair, so I approve of the idea of not permitting them to request another until they're not using the last one, and also of voiding any previous passwords for that account when a new one is created. (Modern hotel room keys work on approximately these principles.) --M -------------------------- Message 10 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 17 00:35:02 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: More changes, per Dred's comments I modified the purpose section slightly. I added the phrase "(while connected)" in II.A. I rewrote a bunch of II.B to answer some of Dred's questions. There's still time to make other comments. --M -------------------------- Message 11 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 23 17:14:05 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: I signed it Hearing no objection, I went ahead and signed this. I tacked on a few last minute paragraphs at the end. Please let me know ASAP if they are going to be a problem. -------------------------- Message 12 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 23 17:40:16 1994 PST From: Sylvia (#50287) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: wow. And I thought I was going to really dislike this petition... Great job, Mickey. I really like it... :) -Syl -------------------------- Message 13 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 23 21:03:29 1994 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Sorry for taking so long to read your latest changes like you asked, Mickey.. I got sick IRL. Anyway. It looks pretty good now. I like the last two paragraphs at the end. Helps to set up a few important disclaimers and ramifications for existing mechanisms.. Oh, you got a typo in the first line. heh. `makes possible' -> makes it possible. But that's just a nit. Dred -------------------------- Message 14 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 23 21:09:56 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Dred (#49925) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Thanks for the approving reply. (Does that mean you'll sign it? Hint...) I'm going to leave the typo in place for now so I can get some momentum on this. I'll fix it if I have to go back and edit it for other reasons. I don't think it's disruptive enough to the meaning to hit now... --M -------------------------- Message 15 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 24 12:15:05 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: hmmm... I support the idea of guest registration, but I have one question. It may have already been addressed, and I have just been to lazy to read the petition carefully, but does this provide a number, or alias for each guest. For example, Grey_Guest harrasses Innocent_Annie (I apologize for the sexism :) so Annie bans Grey_Guest from her room. Is there a way she can ban the asshole in whatever color e logs on as? Stetson -------------------------- Message 16 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 24 12:23:52 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Stetson (#65101) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: hmmm... Re: Stetson's post 15 on *P:Guest-Registration Well, the petition doesn't provide for that but it doesn't preclude it and I fully well expect that the natural implementation will do just as you say. You may or may not be aware, but presently when you @gag a guest, for example, you will end up really gagging all guests from that site. When this petition is installed, I imagine the implementation of @gag will be changed to gag only people coming from that e-mail address at that site. I expect it would be straightforward to make banning work the same. Even though it is not part of the petition, that doesn't mean it won't happen. And if you were having trouble getting it done after the petition passes, you could always do a followup petition to fix this "loose end". --M -------------------------- Message 17 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Mar 25 17:40:06 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: well... If you can assure me that guests will have a number and/or an alias which will ensure that they may be dealt with in the same manner as regular players, you will have my total support. Stetson -------------------------- Message 18 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat Mar 26 14:51:40 1994 PST From: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), Mickey (#52413), and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: Mickey (#52413), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Mickey, the author of Petition:guest-registration (#46185): `Guest Registration', has acquired 10 signatures on his petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #46185' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #46185' to refuse such approval and then send mail to *Petition:guest-registration explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 19 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 29 20:16:01 1994 PST From: Jay (#3920) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) If this petition passes, I can still get a guest anonymously by using an anonymous remailer service such as anon.penet.fi. -------------------------- Message 20 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 29 20:29:23 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Jay (#3920) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Yup, and we can turn those off as we discover them. I can think of 6 other little holes like that, too. And from time to time there are known ways to get wizbits on moo's. But we patch those as we find them, too, and still find it useful to maintain the wiz/non-wiz distinction. Rather than impress us with your ability to find loopholes, how about telling me why knowing a guest's e-mail address will hurt matters. --M -------------------------- Message 21 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 29 21:44:15 1994 PST From: Jay (#3920) To: Mickey (#52413) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) The wizards are charged with maintaining the integrity of the MOO; that's why wizbits (or wizperm'd evals) can be dealt with by them. But turning off some of the loopholes by which people can get anonymous guest registrations involves social decisions on their part. Anyway, a few more holes, now that I'm thinking of this: 1) I have access to /etc/aliases on io.com. I can make as many one-time email addresses as I want. Does this mean that there will be no guest access from here? 2) Suppose I'm on a low-volume mailing list, with mostly people I know. What if I request a guest, giving the email address of the list. I get the password information and use it; the other people drop it on the floor. 3) I log in via SLIP. (Most SLIP access these days assigns an address upon connection, sharing a pool of addresses between all SLIP users.) I request a character specifying whichever mail address at my machine that I feel like. See 361 on *mediation. -------------------------- Message 22 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Mar 29 22:43:58 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Jay (#3920) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Jay, every argument you cite is a problem with real registration of accounts, too, and it hasn't caused us to say that real accounts shouldn't be created, or that we would be better off not having people's email addresses in the registrar's office. We live in an imperfect world. We cope. Some people will deliberately try to get around anything. We'll work to limit that. If we could eradicate losers, we wouldn't need mediation anyway. The whole presence of a mediation system is an acknowledgement that coping with problems is not a science. Aside: I don't know about anyone else, Jay, but I'm beginning with increasing frequency to just disregard your whining because it is so often negative without providing any positive counterpoint. Something in your life must be leaving you remarkably sad for you to have all this negative energy to put into things here. You're a smart guy, capable of so much more than most people who randomly poke at people's mail here. But from what I see you don't use that energy to help strengthen up things--just to make everyone feel as miserable the world as you. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll keep trying to glean something useful from your posts because in the long distant past I've had some very nice discussions with you that suggest there's more available than what I get. But it really is getting harder and harder. --M -------------------------- Message 23 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 30 11:32:32 1994 PST From: Davith (#66784) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Three words: register a guest Come on now... -------------------------- Message 24 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Mar 30 16:16:42 1994 PST From: Sylvia (#50287) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: um.... quick point of interest... The registration of guests isn't such an unheard-of thing... Geez. I've registered at rest areas in Alabama, wedding receptions, hotels... (gotta hit Tiffany's next...) Anyway. My point is that guest registration isn't such a ridiculous, horrible thing.It makes mediation much simpler if it's needed, this petition facilitates the creation of second characters... I really don't see what the arguments against it are. Or maybe I just don't agree. :) -syl -------------------------- Message 25 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 00:07:19 1994 PST From: Davith (#66784) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Hah... The problem is, if people have to go through a WAITING PERIOD just to LOOK AROUND, they may as well make a character for themselves. It's slower, but is worth it in the long run. With guests, they should be quick and convenient. I know *I* would never bother with a system so snobbish as to not even let people take a look without registration. ALL connections (us and guests) contain email addresses in them... it's a simple trace back to the source. It would be much simpler just to have it display the email address of the present user if required. -------------------------- Message 26 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 00:15:12 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Davith (#66784) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Hah... No, connections do not have e-mail addresses in them. They have host info, but not user@host info. And the host info may not be the user's home host. It may be indirect or the user may be visiting somewhere. In any case, it's useless. And anyway, if this petition has the indirect effect of reducing the pressure of people trying to connect to people who really care, then that will make for a natural population-limiting effect that is friendlier than MPG or ZPG, and that won't bother me either. --M -------------------------- Message 27 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 10:38:05 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Just curious... I have supported the idea of guest registration, and I haven't heard any convincing arguments against it. This petition doesn't seem to me to be very controversial either. But I do have one small problem with it. What of those people who have trouble with their E-Mail addresses? It would be easy for me to disregard them, if so many of my friends had not had such problems. This proposal, it seems to me, would do an injustice to these people who aren't fortunate enough to have a well known server, or who may have other problems, but would be valuable additions to Lambda. I have a problem with this. It's not fair to them, whereas mpg, or even zpg, although a bit draconian, would be fair. My reasons to support guest registration were for social reasons, to make guests accountable for their actions, just like characters. But as population control, this petition weeds out people on critera which they may have no control over. This may be a minor concern to you, you may find it negligible. I have recently begun to question this, however, and have changed my mind. I cannot support this petition if I do not find it fair. Stetson -------------------------- Message 28 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 11:23:54 1994 PST From: @nj (#59447) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) i just read your pointer on *soc, then read the petition and signed it...then read all the posts...i'm wondering as a btw if this is going to help guests who keep logging in as guest to get get characters should mpg and/or zpg pass... -------------------------- Message 29 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 11:54:42 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: @nj (#59447) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Stetson, For the record, this petition makes no effort to be "fair" to people with e-mail difficulty. My mom has e-mail difficulty. Her difficulty is that she has no internet access. She doesn't even have a modem. At some point you have to draw a line. yduJ spends a bunch of her personal time (that could well be spent improving the MOO) doing the drudgerous chore of figuring out myriad e-mail addresses for people who can't figure out their own. I've watched her do this, and although she seems sometimes willing to bear the burden silently, I still wish she were spared. This petition would implicitly improve things for her, by making her only ever see applications from people who'd figured it out on their own. I personally think that's a win. If you are the kind of person who wishes to perpetuate her role, then I'll tell you straight away: you should not sign this petition. It is a conscious and intentional aspect of this petition to remove the burden of making it a right of people everywhere to access LambdaMOO. It is not a right, it is a privilege. People who are up to the task of doing their fair share can enjoy that privilege. To me, the first thing a new citizen can offer is the ability to figure out how to use the tools that get them around the internet to our front door. If they can't do that, then they are being disenfranchised from more important things than just LambdaMOO and had better start to get a clue. @nj, I believe this will neither help nor harm the ability to get characters for people who get as far as connecting. If there is a waiting list and that means everyone starts using guest, then it will be a REALLY GOOD idea if we can tell the difference between "a bunch of different people wandering through" and "the same person hogging the scarce GUEST resource". We might have to pass later measures that limit the frequency or duration of the guest resource, or we might have to pass later measures that exclude guests who are at the same e-mail address as some person who's lost his/her account through mediation, but such measures are only straightforward to pass if we take this first step of making it possible to identify guests (at least to the software which enforces the rules; I don't support making the guest identity visible to other players under normal circumstances). --M -------------------------- Message 30 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 12:05:27 1994 PST From: @nj (#59447) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) not sure if you misread the intent of my question...i think mpg or zpg are saying something about having guests who log on more often have a better chance with character requests...i guess that mighta just been part of the discussion on *soc -------------------------- Message 31 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 12:57:24 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Mickey's response to my "fairness" question I realize guest-registration makes no attempt to be fair. That's why I now oppose it, even though I came up with the idea before I heard about your plan (I don't remember which list I posted it to, though). The people I am thinking of, however, are those with servers which aren't known well, so they can't register automatically. This is not their fault, as far as I know (as always, let me know if I'm wrong). I do not think it's fair to limit the population to those fortunate enough to have access to huge internet access sites. I am not talking about people who don't know how to type their E-Mail address correctly.. Mickey says: >To me, the first thing a new citizen can offer is the ability to figure >out how to use the tools that get them around the internet to our front door. >If they can't do that, then they are being disenfranchised from more >important things than just LambdaMOO and had better start to get a clue. As for yduJ's role, I would prefer to hear her speak for herself (yduJ, you have my permission and encouragement to whine for a post, if you want). If yduJ backs up your claims, AND that it would help significantly more than mpg, then I'll reconsider my stance. Stet As for yduJ's role, I would prefer to hear her speak for herself (yduJ, you have my permission and encouragement to whine for a post, if you want). If yduJ backs up your claims, AND that it would help significantly more than mpg, then I'll reconsider my stand. I would like to know WHY some E-Mail addresses don't work... yduJ? If this problem could be fixed, then I would probably change my vote from mpg to Guest-Registration. As it stands, however... -------------------------- Message 32 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 13:06:44 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Messed up... sorry :) Mickey says: >To me, the first thing a new citizen can offer is the ability to figure >out how to use the tools that get them around the internet to our front door. >If they can't do that, then they are being disenfranchised from more >important things than just LambdaMOO and had better start to get a clue. I can respect Mickey when he acknowledges that his petition is not fair, and makes no apologies, but I cannot respect him when he makes statements like this, obviously designed to justify his postion. The statement is misleading. People who aren't fortunate enough to have a popular Internet access site "had better start to get a clue." Whatever. Stet -------------------------- Message 33 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 13:42:45 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Stetson (#65101) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Messed up... sorry :) You can't respect people who try to justify their position? Gee... :-( But you missed my point. The line we are drawing is arbitrary, and I believe it appropriate for it to change. Already we say that people must have "computer hardware". Would you contest the idea that people who demand LambdaMOO access should have access to a computer (or at least a modem and the number of a dialup that answers with a computer)? If I replace "a popular Internet access site" in your message with "computer hardware" then suddenly we are being unfair to people who don't have computers. So what? That happens. Must this line never change? If in the year 2025 EVERYONE is entitled to internet access but a few hermits still don't have it, will we have to make a special rule for them? At what point is it time to up the standards? I suggest that the answer is that being a guest is a privilege. What makes guests tolerable is that they are low overhead. When they become a huge amount of overhead, then we need not to lock them all out but consider what measures we can take that reduces their overhead to a tolerable level. Isn't that what you do at your house when you find you've been having too many guests over? You decide only to invite closer friends or to invite the same people as before but less often? Or, shudder, you give up your longstanding policy of telling your poorer friends that if they don't have the money to fly and visit you, you'll pay for it yourself; true, this denies your friends in Hawaii the chance to visit you in your home in France, but is it immoral? I think not. The resources we expend to allow guests access are our resources, not those of the guest. Anyone who we let in is being done a favor. A decision to do fewer favors should not be equated with doing harm to someone. I dispute the claim that people on far-away internet nodes do not have access "for no fault of their own". First, the people who are not properly connected are victims of some intervening agency making a cost-performance trade-off that said "reaching that far away" or "reaching that reliably" is not worth my money. Those are the people that stand in the way of people having good access, not me or this proposal. Those people are voluntarily affecting the welfare of anyone who stands behind their wall in an adverse way. The people behind that wall are also making a cost trade-off. They could, as I do, call up netcom.com or world.std.com or other such places and purchase internet access for a modest fee (about $20 per month). Their failure to do so says "it's not worth the cost of a dinner out at a restaurant for me to see a fascinating new culture". Fine, they can do that. But they should not complain to me that we have made it impossible to get to here. It is just not so. I think the details of this petition are forced by circumstance of a lot of guests doing bad things we are powerless to prevent. I consider this petition to be MILD. It is like saying, "Guests sometimes rip me off. Not all, but some. Rather than lock my doors to guests, I will make them sign in when they arrive, so that I can contact them in case of problems." Sure, maybe some of them are unable to sign in. But what of the rights of those who are good guests and want not to be thought of as "part of that lot of thieves" and would be willing to just sign in in exchange for regaining their status in many people's minds as "good citizens". As I said, do not sign this if you don't agree. But don't try to get me to change it. The line I'm drawing may be drawn at an arbitrary point, but the fact of the line moving in some way from where it was before is principled, and I defend my right to defend it. --M -------------------------- Message 34 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 15:44:31 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Mickey's Response Mickey, you misunderstood me when I said I couldn't respect you when you tried to justify your position. The little factor was that I couldn't respect you when you made misleading comments to justify your position. In the past, I have agreed with you on many things, including (until up to a couple of days ago) guest-registration. >Already we say that people must have "computer hardware". Would you >contest the idea that people who demand LambdaMOO access should have >access to a computer (or at least a modem and the number of a dialup >that answers with a computer)? If I replace "a popular Internet access site" >in your message with "computer hardware" then suddenly we are being unfair >to people who don't have computers. Just because there are already "arbitrary" limits on millions of would-be players, I do not believe it makes it right to make more limits if not necessary. LambdaMoo is a computer-based enitity, so it makes sense to exclude those with no computer access. LambdaMoo is an Internet based enitity, so it makes sense to exclude those with no Internet access. I can't conclude, however, that either of these justifies turning LambdaMoo into an enitity in which an immediately verifiable E-Mail address is a precondition for involvement. Mickey, let me be clear that I am not trying to get you to back down from your position. I am not trying to get you to change for petition, either. I merely have a problem with it that ruins it for me. I am trying to make it absolutely clear why I oppose it, and, if possible, try to convince others to consider my position. I have a dilemma, in that I really like the idea of guest-registration, but not the idea of exclusion. For many college students, the phone would have to be disconnected to scrounge up an extra $20 a month, for Internet access they already have. I would suggest that people with messed up E-Mail addresses be able to get their guest access by E-Mailing registration the same way they are now, but I'm not sure of the effect that would have on the workload of yduJ. My analogy: -Some people kill people. -Some blacks kill people. -Solution, let's put all blacks on an island somewhere. The problem is that guests are not the only problem, they may not even be a significant problem, except in large numbers. They then may turn into new characters who reinforce the childish behavior of other new characters. This is why I now support *b:mpg. If I thought guests were a significant enough problem (and I have heard no arguments that they are), enough of a problem to justify doing an injustice (in my opinion, perhaps withholding favors) to some, then I would vote for this proposal. But the current situation is that guests are often dealt with quite efficiently. They can be gagged, they can't have any features, besides the two they come with, they can be kicked out... Stet (getting too long, I'll stop here) -------------------------- Message 35 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 16:57:25 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: A simplification... If it is not wrong to arbitrarily deny someone access in a way which is not automatic, then why not just deny access to someone from a certain state or two? Or how about denying someone access based on their major? How about sending everybody new passwords over E-Mail, and if their E-Mail isn't perfectly paved, then screw 'em? If it's just a privelege, why not? I have signed this petition, and will keep my signature on it. But I will likely vote against it if it comes to ballot (notice I said likely). To call a truce for a sec, how many more sigs does this petition need? Stet -------------------------- Message 36 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 17:01:26 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Currently, 146 signatures are needed to transform a petition into an open ballot. Ok, ne'ermind, gotta quite a ways to go though... -------------------------- Message 37 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 17:35:24 1994 PST From: Sylvia (#50287) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: um... One quick point, Stetson... This isn't an arbitrary exclusion, like excluding a state would be. It's simply a matter of technology. If it doesn't exist for some people (and it doesn't, if their access is so screwed up), it's essentially the same thing as saying that their computer doesn't exist for this purpose. I may have a typewriter, but if it doesn't work, I'm not gonna sue someone for not lending me a ribbon. -Syl -------------------------- Message 38 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 18:14:14 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Slyvia's point Ok, good point... but I still don't see that there is enough of a justification for disenfranchising a good number of people for the purpose of "making guests responsible". An counter-analogy might be that Lambda is, we'll say, typewriter-based :) This works just fine, except for the fact that being typewriter-based allows an extremely small number of people to be assholes. To patch this small problem, we make a sweeping move to switch to Microwave-based technology :) Those in circumstances not allowing them to have Microwaves are then hurt. All in the name of a few assholes, we cut off access by a significant number of people who would otherwise get in. Stetson -------------------------- Message 39 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 18:23:01 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Stetson (#65101) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Slyvia's point But no one who is a regular player has been able to gain that account without coming up with a valid e-mail address. So this is like your microwave example except that we have verified that all registered users of our system have microwaves. Of course it's always the possibility that some unregistered user will not, but then, there's always the possibility that some unregistered user will not meet ANY criterion you want to establish. -------------------------- Message 40 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 18:29:00 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Mickey's point Mickey, I think you misunderstand my fear. I don't care about those who try to log in as a guest without having a valid E-Mail address. My concern is for those who have E-Mail addresses which Lambda doesn't want to recognize. There are many players who couldn't get their characters automatically, but had to send E-Mail to request a character. If I could be assured that people who DO have E-Mail addresses, albeit unusual ones, will still be able to send E-Mail. Stet -------------------------- Message 41 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 21:43:28 1994 PST From: Nosredna (#2487) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Mickey's point If a guest's email address does not match $network.valid_email_regexp or valid_host_regexp, it will be kicked out. I've been adding such mismatches to the regexp when in fact MOO is being stricter than RFC822 allows. Mostly the point of this is to prevent morons from sticking crap in their email addresses---kick them out *before* attempting to send mail to a bogus address. Such users would not be able to use guests until someone pointed out the fact that it MOO was being stricter than it should be. Some mailsystems do not conform to RFC822. Xerox's mailer is very picky, and there are addresses which I can reach with my email account that the MOO can't reach. In these rare cases (where bounces the email despite there being a working path between two mailers with compensating bugs) I give the password from my email account and admonish the user never to attempt to use the MOO's email services. Such users would not be able to use guests. This is pretty rare. We would not restrict users at sites on the current "spooflist" from requesting guest access. The "spooflist" contains sites which we know to give multiple accounts to individuals (e.g. colleges with a one account per class being taken policy), sites which give out anonymous accounts, and sites from which we have had problem users (those who have been toaded due to mediation). Nor would we restrict guest requests to being connected from the same host as the email address is. These account for most of the current email registrations. (The rest are from morons who can't figure out how to type their email address right.) --Nosredna, registrar -------------------------- Message 42 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 21:44:43 1994 PST From: Nosredna (#2487) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: anonymous access Hm, we *might* want to restrict guest access from sites that permit anonymous accounts, otherwise all this petition does is make it a pain to use guests rather than actually coming up with something useful. --Nosredna -------------------------- Message 43 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Thu Mar 31 22:07:09 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: E-Mail exclusion Ok, I have two questions. Would the addresses typically excluded from automatic requesting still be able to log in, even if they have to wait? The belief that they would not is why I opposed this petition. But if they could, then I would be all for this petition. If they would be allowed, would this potentially increase the work-load to the registrar? Or would it remain about the same? Perhaps even decrease? After a chat with Keelah, I am thinking perhaps Mickey and I have been misuunderstanding each other. I just want to make sure that those who can request characters under current circumstances can request guests and/or characters under guest-registration. People who cannot figure out what to do at a log-in screen which is well thought out, and supplies enough info will get little sympathy from me. If there is a possibility of excluding those who happen to be at the "wrong site", then I will take that personally, even though I myself am lucky enough to request from the U of Mn., a well enough known server. People logging in from smaller colleges, community centers, etc. may have problems. Stetson -------------------------- Message 44 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 00:07:46 1994 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Nosredna (#2487) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: anonymous access >Date: Thu Mar 31 21:44:43 1994 PST >From: Nosredna (#2487) >Hm, we *might* want to restrict guest access from sites that permit >anonymous accounts, otherwise all this petition does is make it a pain >to use guests rather than actually coming up with something useful. Do you think a change is necessary to the petition in order to make that happen? Or could you do that as a discretionary act, just as you presumably now do when people apply for accounts and give such an address as an e-mail address...? --M -------------------------- Message 45 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 10:11:51 1994 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Stetson (#65101) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: E-Mail exclusion This petition would not increase the workload of the registrar because the registrar would point bounce messages off into /dev/null, and refuse to deal with them. Otherwise, yes, the workload would be increased, probably by a lot. (Actually it will increase just a little, because *some* people will figure out how to send mail to the registrar and whine, and the registrar will have to deal with those messages, if only to delete them.) I don't understand the question: "Would the addresses typically excluded from automatic requesting still be able to log in, even if they have to wait?" You need to define what you mean by "typically excluded". Nosredna gave a pretty much comprensive list of who is currently excluded from automatic @request, and said that the two largest classes of such users would not be excluded from guest usage. The other two classes of users are people to whom the MOO *cannot send mail*. Those people *by necessity* must be excluded. What am I supposed to do? Fly to Xerox with a baseball bat, bludgeon the guard to get in, and then threaten the system administration until they *make their mailer buggy*? Um, no. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 46 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 13:26:58 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: yduJ's response yduJ, the people I am concerned about are those who log in, type @request character for Mrguy@withdorkyaddress, correctly, then are told to send E-Mail to the registration address. If they would still be able to do this under gr, then I would support this petition wholeheartedly. Stet -------------------------- Message 47 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 13:43:16 1994 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Stetson (#65101) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: yduJ's response I think I just realized what the problem is. This petition has nothing to do with getting a named character. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 48 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 14:11:55 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: oops, missend... @peek #3057 on *soc! please! -------------------------- Message 49 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Apr 1 15:17:15 1994 PST From: Stetson (#65101) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: An apology I apologize to all those who have been hopelessly confused by my posts. I withdraw my opposition to *p:gr. I posted to *p:gr with a concern that people who can get a character today would be denied access under guest-registration. Mickey (probably) misunderstood who I was talking about. He then posted a rather defensive message which not only reinforced my error, but gave me new comments to misinterperet. I apologize to Mickey, yduJ, and anyone else confused by me, and lend my full support to *p:gr, unless someone shows me that my fear WAS, in fact, a valid one. Stet -------------------------- Message 50 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat Apr 16 17:33:13 1994 PDT From: Kayti (#62665) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: @boot Hello, all. I have signed this petition, and am wondering... Should this petition pass, it would seem to me that Guests would then be disputable just like characters are. Since when characters are offensive they can be disputed but not @booted, it occurs to me that this petition may render the @boot command obsolete. I have created a petition which would eliminate the @boot command, but have not yet signed it, as I am seeking comments. Perhaps some of you who take an interest in this petition would have some insight into the wording of mine. So if you have time, I would appreciate your reading *p:d and sending comments to the associated mailing list. Thankyou, --Kayti -------------------------- Message 51 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Apr 18 18:08:27 1994 PDT From: Kayti (#62665) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: *p:rb My petition to remove the @boot command has undergone a rewrite. I wish once again to request that people read it (read *p:rb) and send any advice for further rewording to the associated mailing list (@send *p:rb). Also, an idea that has been presented to me is to directly tie Mickey's *p:gr directly into my petition, so that if *p:rb passes, *p:gr would automatically be implemented as well. I am of two minds on this, as I do not wish to muddy the issue of removing the @boot command with the contents of other petitions. If enough people think that it is a good idea to do so, however, I shall add that to the text of my petition. Thanks to you all for your time and energy. --Kayti -------------------------- Message 52 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon May 2 23:00:48 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Need more signatures We are almost to the 1/4 mark on signatures, but have a long ways to go. If everyone who's signed already went out and got even 3 or 4 more signatures, that would divide up the labor nicely and we'd be up over the 176 signature line in no time. Please take a few minutes out to try. Thanks! --Mickey -------------------------- Message 53 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon May 9 12:07:10 1994 PDT From: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) To: Mickey (#52413), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Petition vetted Reply-to: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) The wizard Froxx has determined that Petition:guest-registration (#46185): `Guest Registration' is implementable and has therefore vetted it. -------------------------- Message 54 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon May 9 12:09:32 1994 PDT From: Froxx (#49853) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: vet without additional implementation notes I don't really have time to consider how this will be implemented, although it seems to fall within all of the guidelines for petition and be implementable just at first glance. -------------------------- Message 55 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue May 10 00:13:37 1994 PDT From: Miles (#50636) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: vet without additional implementation notes quoting from the petition text: > As occurs now with second players, the fact of second-character-ness > will be logged, but an attempt will be made not to make this information > apparent to other players. The above statement is not clear to me. I was hoping that the implementation notes would clarify it. As occurs now with second players, @quota shows a quota of 0 for registered 2nd characters (in most cases). You can't see who owns the 2nd char, only that the player is someone's 2nd char, which I think is fair. It was implemented as a result of yduJ's quota-restructuring ballot. Since the above statement seems self-contradictory, would it be possible to at least give some indication of how it is to be interpreted and implemented? Thanks in advance. -------------------------- Message 56 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue May 10 00:20:34 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: vet without additional implementation notes I probably was not aware that quota info allowed a hole in the security of this info presently. I am happy with any reasonable clarification that the wizards might make in this regard. If it is already de facto the case that second characters can be identified by quota=0, then just maintaining that convention is fine by me. --M p.s. I gotta remember to make the slimy politician feature make use of this information. I didn't realize I could write a :is_second_character without wizperms. There is a predicate in the core which answers this question but it is not given out to ordinary mortals to call for some security reason that I guess is silly in the presence of your remarks about quota... -------------------------- Message 57 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat May 28 12:55:17 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Reminder: the clock is ticking I'd ask supporters to please keep the heat on about this petition, which has finally been vetted and now has a ticking clock on it. We are over the 1/3 point, so if everyone could just get a minimum of two more signatures (though more would help), that would do it. To help in this effort, might I suggest that you consider adding the Slimy Politician Feature Object (by doing "@add-feature #30748") and using any of the commands @show_lobbyable_players (@slp), @show_lobbying_rooms (@slr), or @show_pals_to_lobby (@sptl). For information on how these commands work, you can use "help #30748". For people with a declared set of pals, I particularly recommend @sptl, since it will tell you the names of people who are close to you who you may not realize need lobbying. --M -------------------------- Message 58 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 4 01:53:53 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Reminder to lobby! Only 34 days remain before I am forced to edit this petition to keep it alive. At 98 people, it has substantial support. If everyone who has signed gets just one or two more signatures, we'd be easily over the line. Please consider helping out. You can "@add-feature #30748" for some tools to help you lobby. See particularly @show_pals_to_lobby (@sptl), @show_lobbying_rooms (@slr), and @show_lobbyable_players (@slp). --M -------------------------- Message 59 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 15 08:08:31 1994 PDT From: Hagbard (#36271) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: vet without additional implementation notes This is a bit late for a reply...but. I hadn't noticed this petition until Mickey pointed it out to me yesterday. It was never pointed out that you can, if you so desire, @transfer 50000 to a second character to make it look like a normal character. Hagbard -------------------------- Message 60 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 15 12:21:01 1994 PDT From: Angharad (#79047) To: *Social-Issues (#7233) and *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: "Yes I signed this petition today and hope others will as well. It is a well-thought out, carefully considered, reasoned approach to an ongoing problem. I have been harrassed here on numerous occasions by guests, but I don't want to see entire sites punished for the actions of a few assholes with testosterone (or estrogen) overload. And that's that. -------------------------- Message 61 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat Jul 16 00:15:40 1994 PDT From: Damask_Falcon (#59559) To: *Petition:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: my two cents More fascist social-control. Period. Damask_Falcon (trying to be terse for once) -------------------------- Message 62 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Jul 17 22:09:46 1994 PDT From: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Open Ballot #46185 Ready for Voting Petition #46185 has received enough signatures to transform it into open Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): `Guest Registration', which is now available for voting. Type `read #46185' to see the text of the proposal and then `vote yes on #46185' to cast your vote in favor of it, `vote no on #46185' to cast your vote against it, or `abstain on #46185' to stop hearing about it. Voting on this ballot will close on Sunday, July 31, at 10:09 pm, LambdaMOO Standard Time; until then, you can change your vote as often as you wish. You can read (and contribute to) commentary on this proposal on the mailing list named *Ballot:guest-registration, *Ballot:g-registration, *Ballot:g-r, or *Ballot:gr; type `help mail' for details. -------------------------- Message 63 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Jul 17 23:07:58 1994 PDT From: Aramalian (#56893) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Statement about Guests being low overhead Some questions: Will this ballot force guests to take up more memory(ie causing more overhead, and allowing less guests to apply?) What is the difference between a registered guest and a reg char who is not using his quota...? which leads to...why would someone who does not want to be a regular char, but likes being here, to simply be a registered guest forever, possibly taking up the guest opportunity of a person who might end up being a good citizen? Respectfully yours, Nicholas Aramalian -------------------------- Message 64 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 02:34:01 1994 PDT From: Exedore (#56266) To: Aramalian (#56893) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Statement about Guests being low overhead > Will this ballot force guests to take up more memory(ie causing > more overhead, and allowing less guests to apply?) Well, any changes you make to the generic guest or $login or anything will definitely make it larger, but it will do neither of which you speak (overhead/less guests). > What is the difference between a registered guest and a reg char > who is not using his quota...? Er......huh? What, connecting as a guest is a sin since you're not using your quota? Actually, people who connect as guests by and large are using their quota, writing a feature or a room, and testing that feature or object with a guest. Sort of a temporary second character, only not taking up nearly as much space or quota, and not letting you `share' verbs (some people have second characters to dump their queued verbs on, so they don't lag as badly). Perhaps `shared second character' is a better parrallel. Anyhow, I see no big deal with people who have players connecting as guests...as it stands now, they do it. They do it often. And more power to them. If you want to change that, then make a petition stating so... > which leads to...why would someone who does not want to be a > regular char, but likes being here, to simply be a registered > guest forever, possibly taking up the guest opportunity of a > person who might end up being a good citizen? Well, again, we have literally hundreds of people that are doing this now (only they continue to connect as guests because they A) don't have an email address and thereby can't get a character or B) just like being anonymous, their actions can't be pinned down on them very easily...either way, who cares? The prevalent purpose (the reason above all others) for having guests is to get people to become players). At any rate, if you want to put an end to the `evil rotten not-a-player-just-staying-a-guest crowd,' as it were, write a petition. All of these issues are not addressed in this petition (if I read it right). -------------------------- Message 65 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 07:37:53 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Second character registration Why are there no implementation notes about how the ballot would impact second-character creation? It would give me great pause if this ballot meant that people could create and recycle their second characters as easily as any other object. Some continuity in identity here keeps us accountable to each other. X'iina -------------------------- Message 66 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 11:06:11 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: *P:G-R FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions Q: What's the point of this? A: Presently, when we lock out guests either for a short time (e.g., with @boot, which locks them out for an hour) or for a long time (due to Mediation), we must lock out all guests from a site, even though only one of those guests was causing the problem. This ballot seeks to make it possible to distinguish one guest from another. So if problems do arise, we can lock out just the bad one. Q: Is this an attempt to keep us from having guests? A: No. LambdaMOO needs Guests to avoid stagnation and stay alive. Q: Will this let someone else impersonate me by using my e-mail address? A: If someone tries to impersonate you, the temporary password will be mailed to you and not to them. That won't do them any good. Q: Will this let someone else change my password? A: No. The new Guest passwords have nothing to do with real player passwords. Q: Will this mean guests are not anonymous? A: No. I am a privacy advocate and don't have any interest in seeing anyone's sites exposed--guests or otherwise. The information will go on file but will not be looked at unless there is a problem, and even then only by those with a need to know. Q: Does this mean people who don't have an e-mail address can't be guests? A: Yes. However, most people with Telnet access have E-mail access. And the numbers of people having e-mail access are going up every day. (Note that this scheme does not require that you are coming in from the site that your e-mail address is at.) Q: How does this affect mediation of guests? A: In two ways. In effect, this gives guests a reliable identity from the point of view of mediation, which means both that bad guests could be more reliably disputed without involving good guests at the same site AND that guests who were done wrong to can more reliably dispute a player. Q: Why is the stuff about secondary characters mixed into this ballot? A: A common use of guest accounts is to test programs. It seemed best to address this with a mechanism that really properly suited program testing, which is clumsy to do from guest accounts anyway. -------------------------- Message 67 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 11:56:28 1994 PDT From: Joe (#2612) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: sameness There are a number of places in this ballot where it seems necessary to test addresses for something like equality--for example, booting a guest locks out guest access "from that e-mail address". In implementing this, it would be nice to use something like the scheme used in @request, where, for example, two addresses listing the same name at different hosts at the same school are considered to be the same. I just thought I'd note this; on the off chance that anyone thinks this is unreasonable, we should probably have the debate while people are still voting. -------------------------- Message 68 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 12:16:53 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Joe (#2612) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: sameness It was certainly my intent to put guest registration on par with player registration. Neither will provide perfect security. Both will require the use of heuristics in places. To the extent that the same heuristics are applied in both cases, the general good will be served. In my opinion. Not that the opinion of the author necessarily counts if there is wording to the contrary in the petition. But then again, there is not wording that actively contravenes this, I think it's a reasonable course for the wizard to take. Unless, as you say, someone raises some violent opposition to that interpretation. And I agree that now is a good time to make that opposition known. --M -------------------------- Message 69 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 18 13:08:08 1994 PDT From: Froxx (#49853) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Apology on implementation notes I'm sorry for the delay on creating implementation notes on this petition. I should have written them before vetting, or at least soon after. It definitely needs notes on the second character registration. I or someone else will complete the notes with respect to second character creation within the next day or two. -------------------------- Message 70 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Jul 19 08:44:01 1994 PDT From: Tyler (#59639) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Just a concern. I'm a little confused on some of this, and was simply wondering if this petition will in any way affect pre-existing characters who do not log in to lambda through an e-mail address. I'm probably way off base in asking this, but I felt it better to have this concern answered instead of misinterpreting it. -------------------------- Message 71 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Jul 19 12:37:12 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Tyler (#59639) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Just a concern. No. This petition does not affect the status of regular player accounts in any way. -------------------------- Message 72 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Jul 19 12:48:46 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Second character registration Re: X'iina's post 65 on *B:Guest-Registration I'm not responsible for implementation notes, but believe Gru has promised to provide the rest of the half-done implementation notes soon. It would be easy (and probably appropriate) for a log to be kept of which second character belonged to who. Objnums used for character creation are never re-used again for characters, so there is no possibility of confusion. (A pool could actually be kept so that repeated second character creations by a player were created as the same object with relatively low overhead.) I think this will be a non-issue in practice, although I agree it is a good to have raised. --M -------------------------- Message 73 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 22 15:22:23 1994 PDT From: Isiah (#77457) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: support of this thing Although i have second thoughts on the effectivness of the way this will be implemented, I fully support this ballot. I, and i know many others, have been constantly harassed and abused by guests who arte just here to play games with people's minds. And i know some of these guests are actually real characters who use guests to abuse other players without hurting the reputation or whatever of their ownb regular character. I have 2 guests, i believe, who stalk me. Not that i really care, but it would be nice to see them punicshed in some way. Or at least prevented from continuing this. Many are making the point that they are just guests, and we have the right (do we?) no t the, oops, not to be put into mental anguish (a bit to the extreme) because of some people. They ARE guests and should act like it. It is our home/MOO isn't it? Basically, I just support it because of the rise in abusive guests and for security purposes. That's my take on things. -------------------------- Message 74 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 25 07:35:23 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Social-Issues (#7233) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Potential consequences *B:Guest-registration has a clause that deals with the creation of second characters: specifically, that players would be able to control the creation and recycling of second characters without having to make a special registration request. Though I understand that this clause was intended to provide programmers with easy access to another character when it becomes more cumbersome to connect as a guest, I think there are many potential unexamined social consequences to the ballot. This is made more difficult in that the implementation notes, to date, don't address second character registration. Here are some questions to ponder. What kind of accountability will there be for characters who may only be around the MOO for a few hours, days, weeks at a time? How can arbitration be pursued against a character whose object number has been recycled? Yes, I know it's *possible* for these to remain consistent for a player's second character as it's created and destroyed, or for a log to be kept, but the ballot does not guarantee it. More importantly, will people feel the same kind of personal accountability if conflicts can be solved by dissolving one's identity and starting anew? A perhaps larger issue is: do we want to have that much fluidity in identity here, and to assume that much fluidity among the people we meet? To know that we may meet them under an infinite number of guises with perhaps not even an object number to connect them? There's nothing inherently *wrong* with that, but it's a rather radical change that I think we ought to consider before simply voting it in as an adjunct to a change in guest registration. X'iina (very purposefully posting this to *soc, so don't bother telling me I should have kept it on *B:GR)) -------------------------- Message 75 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 25 09:08:31 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: X'iina (#58335), *Social-Issues (#7233), and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Potential consequences As for the issue of objnum accountability, unless you hear from the wizards that they will refuse to keep track of people in a way that makes them accountable, I think it's a non-issue to worry that they won't be willing to. As for the issue of fluidity of identity, people add/remove morphs/aliases all the time and those are MUCH less accountable than what I'm proposing here. If I just add an alias, go and harrass someone, and then remove the alias and hope no one recorded my objnum, I MIGHT get off totally free. Worse, someone else may come in and pick up the free name and get blamed. In general, this is also true of recycled names--which people nevertheless go after with a zeal when the alias comes up due to character recycling. I basically agree with you that fluidity of identity is sometimes an issue, but that problem is NOT being created by this proposal. Almost certainly, the characters created under this proposal will have a logged identit; not so of regular morph/alias changes. It is fluidity of names, not objnums, that is the problem. And any such problem you're worried about for that I can already make with just one character. So I think this concern is NOT reason enough to vote no on this proposal. I'm replying on *Soc because you chose to send there, but please let's just have discussion related to the petition on *B:GR and not bother those on *Soc who have no interest in this topic. It is unfair for you to send an isolated message to *Soc because it forces the respondents to choose between reestablishing balance on *Soc (at the cost of spamming people on *Soc who may not care) or replying only to *B:GR (leaving your concern unanswered to those who read only *Soc). Once a ballot (or even a petition exists), I believe the only mail traffic about it that belongs on *Soc should be content-neutral "this forum exists" or "this forum is important" messages; but not "here's a reason to vote no" or "please read only messages 1,2,3" messages. This paragraph is directed not just at you, but as a hint to those trying to decide what posts on *Soc are appropriate and what are not. And, of course, it's just one mouse's opinion--but one mouse who would rather not have posted on *Soc at all. --M -------------------------- Message 76 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 25 09:38:20 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: [X'iina (#58335): Re: Potential consequences] Date: Mon Jul 25 09:36:20 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Social-Issues (#7233) Subject: Re: Potential consequences > As for the issue of objnum accountability, unless you hear from > the wizards that they will refuse to keep track of people in a way > that makes them accountable, I think it's a non-issue to worry > that they won't be willing to. > (snip) > identity is sometimes an issue, but that problem is NOT being > created by this proposal. Almost certainly, the characters > created under this proposal will have a logged identit; not so of > regular morph/alias changes. It is fluidity of names, not > Willing to? Almost certainly? Your ballot does not propose a logging system. Are you presuming that the wizards will make the social judgment that one is necessary? X'iina (it's not about guest registration) -------------------------- Message 77 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Mon Jul 25 10:05:26 1994 PDT From: Hagbard (#36271) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: [X'iina (#58335): Re: Potential consequences] >...Your ballot does not propose a logging system. Are you presuming that the wizards will make the social judgment that one is necessary? Uh, isn't *player-creation-log enough of a logging system? Hagbard -------------------------- Message 78 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Jul 26 13:10:33 1994 PDT From: Rusty (#48961) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Still undecided I have never before taken so long to make up my mind about a ballot. Perhaps someone can answer this question for me: How will the Ballot differ in effect from just doing away with guests? Rusty -------------------------- Message 79 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Tue Jul 26 13:47:49 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Rusty (#48961) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Still undecided The key elements of a guest are things like "visible persistence of identity" and "commitment of the community to the guest". Under this proposal, a guest can log in, have a chat with someone, check out the place, and generally learn about the place before people are paying attention to who they are. It only really matters who you are if you are very mean to someone and get involved in a dispute. In that sense, this makes you the same as a player--it elevates you to the level of immediate responsibility for severe acts that you take. And, by the way, that would be true for visitor status in any place you go to visit as a tourist. Mostly people don't care your name and treat you the same as any other stranger. But if you set fire to a building, your guest status doesn't keep you from being prosecuted. So "persistence of identity" under normal actions is not there, but it is obtainable in extreme cases. That is different than for normal players, who people can learn to love and hate even if there is no crime committed and who the next time they see you will (probably) still love and hate you just for who you are and have persistently been, and not for anything they know about your relation to the external world. Commitment of the community is the other aspect. If we just said, everyone's account is approved immediately, then if we got too many applications too fast, we'd be screwed trying to figure out how to turn them all off. And besides, some people don't WANT a real character while they are just starting. So a guest account allows the community to make a small commitment measured in minutes, not years, to trying to accomodate that player's needs. And it is that distinction which allows us to say that the application for an account should be defaultly accepted, rather than defaultly objected. A request by someone to be a real part of the community deserves more careful control because we cannot go back on it; that was the outcome of *B:MPG. But having guest accounts allows people to experiment with us without our committing to them forever, or them to us. I think your question is a reasonable one, and I hope you'll find these are reasonable answers. Please note that the question on the table is not one of flushing guests. (I'm sure you know this, Rusty, but others reading the mail might be confused.) This ballot tries to make it possible to (a) go after guests that cause trouble and (b) keep that from getting confused with good guests at the same site. Right now, the bad guests make life miserable for other potential guests from the same site. It's a delicate balance to strike, and I admit right out that this proposal amounts to a balancing act of competing needs on both sides. --M -------------------------- Message 80 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Jul 27 08:03:35 1994 PDT From: Damask_Falcon (#59559) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: accountability This whole issue of accountability and 'fluidity of identity' just reinforces what I've felt all along--anyone who supports legislation like this is a (at least closet) control freak, and I guess I should be glad that these kinds of people aren't running the country, or we'd all be carrying identity cards by this time. One of the charms of cyberspace is that you can be fluid in your identity, that it is difficult for people to find out who you really are if you don't want them to-- or even *what* you are--and that you don't have to worry about that much accountability. And you people want to take it away from us? Damask_Falcon -------------------------- Message 81 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Wed Jul 27 10:06:42 1994 PDT From: Sisyphus (#75670) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: accountability I, for my part, do not see personal accountability as a trait of a control freak, nor do I see fluidity of identity as necessarily a right that is inalienable. I can't say that I see making guests just as accountable for their actions as players (or characters, or whatever is the right word here) as something that would take away from the "charms" of cyberspace. If the person wants a character, fine, then the site info should not be readily available, but if they don't want a character, and they don't want to give out their site information, I can't see that the cost of them not joining up is outweighed by the benefit of having them be accountable for whatever they do. But, then again, that's just my opinion. Keep on rolling, Sisyphus -------------------------- Message 82 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 29 12:32:40 1994 PDT From: Elana (#87174) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Some concerns... I feel opposed to this ballot for a couple reasons, but I thought I'd air them here in case y'all have responses to them that may change my mind. First off, I agree with X'iina that I'm not sure if I like the fluidity that would result from the proposal as it now stands. I disagree with some of the posted comments, in that I think this is much more unaccountable than morphing -- generally, when I meet someone, just as an automatic thing I scope them and look at their aliases so that I'll recognise them if I meet them again. Perhaps there is a way of hiding Morph aliases so they aren't readable that I haven't learned about, but anyay, I don't think you could say that there would be *more* character continuity this way. It's not that I'm a control freak, I just like knowing who I'm talking to, and I can deal with this not being the case for guests so long as it holds for the regular characters who make up the vast majority. My other concern is purely personal and selfish: I really like the guest system for testing out programs. Some of them are multi-person interactive, but minimally one really needs three people on for testing in order to see the o-reaction and the victim-reaction. I don't want to have to save a bunch of unusable quota just so that during the once-in-a-blue-moon I'm testing something, I don't have to recycle items I'm attached to. If anything, programmers are *more* prone not to have extra quota, so I'm not sure this actually addresses their needs. If there's a way around this I'm not seeing, please let me know. Elana -------------------------- Message 83 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 29 12:50:21 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: Elana (#87174) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Re: Some concerns... Yes, there is a way of hiding/changing aliases. @rm-alias. It's not what you use for morphs, but morphs just piggy-back on the general addition/deletion of aliases which you don't even have to be in a morphing player class to do and which is done all the time by people. So you are wrong if you think that you can @who someone later and still find them with some sort of reliability. Often you can, but particularly in the case where someone is being deliberately obnoxious the chances are way less. Note that if the quota for test characters problem becomes an issue, you can ALSO use a VGA guest. I really think that in practice the problems that might come up to that (and I agree small problems might) will be felt equally by the community in a way that will lead to appropriate solutions. But if this fails now, there will be no other chance to try this. It will just be dead. Period. --M -------------------------- Message 84 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 29 13:35:49 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Second characters My concerns about second characters have been allayed by Froxx's recent addition to the implementation notes. Now I'm just going to vote no because I favor the easy access that I enjoyed when I first connected as a guest, and the access I enjoy as a guest on other MUDs. But the passage or defeat of this ballot doesn't matter to me much, at this point. -------------------------- Message 85 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Fri Jul 29 18:13:31 1994 PDT From: Linnea (#58017) To: X'iina (#58335) and *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) WRT your post 84 on *b:g-r: do you think that helping to get rid of harassing guests is LESS important than your having easy access to test guests? is it a higher priority to have a test guest instantly than to have proper redress for guests who treat lambdamoo citizens badly? please answer honestly. i do not mean to attack, i am just curious. -------------------------- Message 86 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat Jul 30 07:13:35 1994 PDT From: X'iina (#58335) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Note that I didn't mention test guests in my post. My post was in support of easy connectivity for all guests. Easy access for guests is a tradition in the MUDding world. The vast majority of guests are people who are curious about Lambda, not hostile invaders. I think we should make them welcome, and certainly, boot them if they're terribly antisocial. I don't think we need to gear up to drag them into our criminal justice system. But as I stated before, I don't find this a matter of pressing importance. Again, my previous opposition to the ballot was because of the second character issue. I think it's sad that people feel so threatened by our guests. I think it's good old fashioned xenophobia: that "us" versus "them" mentality that seems to be hard-wired into the human species. But I'm not strongly opposing the ballot at this point. X'iina -------------------------- Message 87 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sat Jul 30 12:23:30 1994 PDT From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) X'iina, I realize you're not trying to make a strong case on this but some are, so I feel compelled to reply... First of all, while it may be slightly more work, the business with asking for e-mail addresses is not intended to make guests feel less welcome. In some cases, the guest may choose to feel that way. But it is still the case that the software will automatically and without human protest send them a guest password. That is far from what I would call hostile. As to booting them if they are bad--you have to also lock them out for a while or booting does no good. If you lock them out, you must either know who they are or you must lock out people who were not bad. To me, locking out a guest who was not bad is WAY worse and more guest-hostile than asking everyone for their e-mail address up front. Also, when bad guests cannot be dealt with, it gives a bad name to guests as a whole. This petition is aimed at individual accountability just so that when people have a bad experience, we can deal specifically with that bad person and not have the person who was getting bothered have to go around distrusting all guests from then on, or gagging all guests from various sites. I really tried very honestly here to propose something that, while a bit more complicated than what was there before, was a minimal step toward accountability while preserving the ability of arbitrary people to log in and enjoy without committing to a full account. --M -------------------------- Message 88 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Jul 31 22:09:50 1994 PDT From: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) Subject: Voting closes on ballot #46185: Final Results The voting period for Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): `Guest Registration' has ended. The final vote count is as follows: In favor: 289 Against: 272 Abstaining: 155 The proposal has failed to get twice as many votes in favor as against and so has not passed. -------------------------- Message 89 from *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185): Date: Sun Jul 31 22:52:41 1994 PDT From: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) To: *Ballot:guest-registration (#46185) and *Wizard-List (#6428) Subject: Ballot statistics A total of 2537 eligible voters logged in during the ballot period. Of these, 716 people or 28% cast votes of any sort; 561 people or 22% cast `yes' or `no' votes. --------------------------