The Lawbringer: A prelude to avatar rights
by Mathew McCurley 
Apr 8th 2011 at 8:00PM
The concept of avatar rights is a strange and new concept, only really going back as far as people have demanded rights for their virtual counterparts. In the early days of the MMO genre, players would populate MUDs (multi-user dungeons) or similarly designed constructs online and do pretty much the same things we do today -- hack, slash, chat, and adventure with other users. From MUDs, we got graphical MMOs, and from graphical MMOs, we got the second and third generations of the massively multiplayers we know today. World of Warcraft comes from a rich history of all of the games that came before it, as did the concept of the virtual self. The one thing all of these games have had in common over the years is the avatar.
This week's Lawbringer is the first in a multi-part series discussing avatar rights -- where the concept came from, where it's going, and who has the power to set the rules. We're going to talk about the venerable Raph Koster and his avatar rights manifesto, who your avatar is and what is so damn special about him, and some really interesting concepts dealing with what people feel they are owed. Strap in -- this may get crazy.
What are avatar rights?
The concept of avatar rights is a bit difficult to explain without a basic foundation or understanding about the way certain societies feel about human rights, inalienable rights, and all that jazz. In the United States, citizens have basic rights that were originally outlined in the first 10 amendments to the constitution, also called the Bill of Rights. The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. People generally seem to want rights and, in many cases, get them.
Upon entering a taxi here in New York City, you'll see a sign attached to every cab divider that displays the Taxicab Rider Bill of Rights. This short document outlines what you as a taxi passenger are entitled to. These rights include a noise-free trip; access to any destination in a prescribed area; clean, smoke- and scent-free air; and the ability to decline to tip for poor service, among others. The point of the taxicab rider bill of rights is to convey to you, the consumer, these rights that you may or may not have known that you have -- but more importantly, to illustrate that these are expectations that you can have when you enter a taxi.
Does your MMO character deserve the same type of rule set when entering a virtual world? Do you?
Conflict breeds rights
When players began to inhabit virtual worlds in the beginning, these worlds were the Wild West. No one (save for some prolific sci-fi writers) could have predicted what virtual worlds would become. To be honest, we still don't understand or cannot comprehend where the virtual worlds of the future will take us. Humans are terribly bad at predicting the future.
As players began to play and worlds began to take shape, virtual nations rose and fell, and players began to enter into conflict, justice and order were needed. Thus, the onus of rule and power fell to those who created the worlds, the admins. They took matters into their godly hands and wrote what would later constitute terms of use, EULAs, avatar rights, and any other enumeration of expectations a player could have when entering the virtual world. We all want recourse for malicious actions taken against us, right? We all strive to live in a society, albeit virtual, where the rule of law is prominent and followed.
Or do we? The beauty of virtual worlds is that they are virtual. They do not exist in our world because they are decidedly otherworldly. Take, for example, Second Life. Second Life allows players to take on the form of anything they desire, be it their perceived perfection or a dolphin that shoots certain anatomy out of its blowhole. The only rules that apply to Second Life and the only rights players have are those enumerated by the developers and the market conditions set forth. Other rules and limitations are implemented in a roundabout way through game mechanics and the limitations of the hardware and software. But where is the basic right of freedom from oppression, if that is even applicable?
Maybe western values and ideologies have no place in virtual worlds. What if the virtual world's location is that of the medieval era, a serfdom, where peasants' rights were seen to by their lordly landowners and freedom wasn't a word that people cared to think about. Is the freedom inherent in the choice to be a part of the virtual world, then, to take on the avatar of a peasant living under lord rule? Is the basic right of freedom the ability to log off at any time and escape the fate of the avatar residing online?
Raph Koster and the bill of avatar rights
Enough about freedom. Raph Koster was the lead developer of Ultima Online, oft cited as my favorite MMO of all time, and the creative director of Star Wars Galaxies, oft cited as my favorite cantina dancing simulator of all time. Above all of that, though, was Koster's hand in creating LegendMUD, one of the more progressive worlds at the time, in which the class system was eschewed for a skill-based character progression. Koster was one of those guys who just knew there was something special about the virtual space, something intrinsically important about how we could transport ourselves into other beings and affect worlds.
In 2000, Koster wrote a now famous post called "Declaring the Rights of Players" that set out to create a declaration of the rights of avatars in the online space. The question he asked at the beginning of the post, Do players of virtual worlds have rights?, set the tone. Is this even needed? Do our avatars have rights when we embody them, or are they just manifestations of a game world that we play by the rules of whatever world we live in? Do we have recourse?
When Koster wrote his avatar bill of rights, he was, for all intents and purposes, a developer trying to run a profitable game world. Writing his list of rights seemed contradictory at the time; by enumerating the rights players should feel that they should have, he was potentially shooting himself in the foot, as players would then demand this level of service from his very own game if it was not being met. That fact did not stop him, and the rights were engraved forever in internet stone.
Koster began his post discussing whether or not virtual worlds are the private playgrounds of the admins who created them or if inhabitants of these worlds are allowed to grant themselves the rights they feel they are deserved, even if they are in someone else's private playground. While rights that bleed in from the real world are not at issue (if Blizzard engaged in criminal acts, there would most likely be recourse), the real concerns come from the players in the virtual worlds themselves.
All of this speculation deals with virtual worlds that are purely for fun and enjoyment, not virtual meeting places or business venues. When the real world catches up to the virtual one and contracts are signed and deals are made in virtual space without second thought, the rules for recourse have to change. For now, we can accept that the want of rights in a purely entertainment-driven venue is important for the continuation of that fun.
Next week, we're going to look at how the World of Warcraft terms of use and EULA have incorporated a good deal of avatar and player rights into them, and we'll talk a bit about the future of avatar rights and where this discussion is heading.
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wowinsider.com.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ronin Apr 8th 2011 9:02PM
If you consider that (Ralph Koster's post) a "short read", I'd hate to see what you call a _long_ read ;)
Btw, you need to edit one of the last lines of your article. "...the want of rights in a purely entertainment-driven venue is important for the continuation of that fun." I do not think it means what you think it means. "Want" in that context does not mean 'desire', it means 'lack'. So although even if you meant "desire", the sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense, it makes none if you meant "lack".
It'll be interesting to see where you take this series. Since Koster has no authority, his declaration of rights is non-binding and carries no power over Blizzard or anyone else-- unless they freely choose to be bound by it. However, as an expression of the rights he thinks we ought to have over our Avatars, it's somewhat interesting as a discussion-starter.
Aruhgulah Apr 8th 2011 10:34PM
I think Matt's a law student. You REALLY don't wanna know what he considers a long read.
Samuel Apr 8th 2011 11:12PM
@Aruh
He only had three days of law school, mind you. :P
Amaxe Apr 8th 2011 9:07PM
An interesting bill of rights. I see things I agree with and things I disagree with. Others are issues I had not considered before.
As I work through the article of Koster, I see problems on the horizon with #5. The problem is, who determines "actions and utterances that are hurtful to society"? When is a claim that an utterance is hurtful reasonable or unreasonable? As it stands I find this much too vague to be meaningful. The answer in #6 seems problematic when one considers the concept of the "tyranny of the majority" and shifting opinions.
Other proposals seem reasonable. Innocent until proven guilty would have been useful when some people using a version of Linux got banned a few years back.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Linux-Users-Get-Unbanned-From-World-of-Warcraft-Servers-40790.shtml
I guess I would say:
"Those who run the MMO must act consistently with their posted rules, with avenues for appeal when there is a dispute over whether a violation is committed. Players should act in a way which is civil towards others, and anything which promotes a view which is offensive to some should be kept private between the players who share the same views rather than insist all cater to their views. Player Rights must be balanced with Player Responsibilities."
Skigi Apr 9th 2011 3:24AM
As far as things harmful to the society, we have the 'Report Spam' feature, followed closely by the 'Ignore' feature. Even if the community, as a whole, does not agree with something, we have the ability to remove ourselves from it.
And in the real world, what's harmful to the society is equally as vague, as my history class proved when we had an hour discussion on the first amendment's freedom of speech.
Amaxe Apr 9th 2011 9:40AM
Of course, "Report Spam" depends on Blizz having set rules which it follows consistently without favor to one view or another.
Smapdor Apr 8th 2011 11:08PM
Heh, even with the riders bill of rights try to get a cab to Brooklyn with a drunk wife. Not a lot of fun.
MsMoo Apr 9th 2011 6:38AM
One of the underlying tones of the the WoW EULA is that we rent our toons and are just paying for time and the ability to play on their servers, granted most of us understood that already but not everyone I've encountered has.
Puntable Apr 9th 2011 11:29AM
August of 2000 does not seem like that long ago, but things were very different back then. Imagine if you died in a raid, and your guildmate said: "Give me permission to loot all your gear and everything in your bags so I can rez you." Would you do it? That was Everquest at the time.
StClair Apr 11th 2011 1:34PM
Example N+1 of why "the good old days" often really weren't, no matter what we think we remember.
Artificial Apr 9th 2011 1:47PM
Even renters have rights.
Badgelooter Apr 12th 2011 10:14AM
I don't see many of these ideals reflected in Blizzard's EULA, and I'm interested to see where you go with your next articles. The legal reality may be that Blizzard owns our toons, and that our "renter" status limits our rights to recourse if Blizzard makes changes which with we disagree, but the economic reality limits their free reign. Sure, Blizzard may have the legal right to erase any character I have, the gear that character has acquired, or take another action which "undoes" some accomplishment or acquisition, but if they started doing that arbitrarily, the players would be gone. Poof. Imagine logging in and finding your T11 heroic geared character sitting in SW as a naked level one toon. Sure, Blizzard COULD do that. But they wouldn't do it for long because people simply wouldn't put up with it.
Koster's application of a social contract theory breaks down when you consider the reality that we have no true legal recourse against those that govern us. If the player base decides to "revolt", Blizzard simply ignores the dissidents by getting rid of them (forum bans, anyone?). The only solution to Blizzard taking an action that angers you is to cancel your subscription. Koster seems to imply that we, as a community, could "rise up" against our oppressors to effect change. That does not reflect the state of things. If all 12 million account holders said "we want free mounts at level 20, we have a right to efficient travel in the world we occupy", Blizzard could safely ignore us. What can we do? It's not as though we can march on their HQ and demand change.
The primary check to the power of governance is the free exchange of information. That's why in America (I'll speak to this because I'm not sure about other nations), we have public courts. The judicial process is largely transparent. Not so in our virtual world. Even discussing an action taken against you is considered a violation of the TOS. How many threads on the official forums are locked/deleted because someone complains about an action taken against their account? To have rights, we have to know when our rights are being infringed upon, and when the rights of others are being infringed upon. Koster's notions of justice for all only work when the community can examine the actions of the governing authority and effectively petition for a policy alteration when we think that authority is taken too far. Without the ability to review the implementation of policy, the players will never have the ability to meaningfully contest unfair practices.
Mathew McCurley Apr 12th 2011 10:23AM
I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why I think player/avatar rights are a fascinating subject. It has something to do with enforcement and accountability, but more about a user base who comes up with its own rules in an already rule-driven environment and then begins to expect those rules. The next article is going to talk a good deal about the dungeon finder, for instance, and many of the player-made expectations of the game world that Blizzard has taken to heart. Loot rules are particularly interesting as well.