Sims Griefers Get More Publicity

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a CNN article highlighting players turning to lawlessness and deviance in The Sims Online. This subject, which other reports covered a while back, seems to fascinate the media, and CNN says the problems of bad behavior are "..raising questions about whether limits on conduct should be set in such emerging virtual worlds, even if they are huge adult playpens." Additionally, the article ruminates on more serious problems, as disputes that escalate beyond the virtual "..could lead to more real-world, legal liability for both players and the companies that make the games."

Comments

No such Thing as bad publicity

[haydenth]

All this talk of the mob in TSO makes me want to play it! It seemed boring and repetitive before, now only if they made a Vice City Online....

griefing in the sims

[bigbigbison]

Can anyone actually verify the kind of griefing that goes on in the sims online? I read the original article about it, but i read from some that the things they were saying in the article weren't possible. Has anyone actually experienced any of this alleged sims online griefing first hand, or is this a case of the media manufacturing a story?

DOSJ: Department of Sims Justice

[Babbster]

I'm surprised that they (Maxis/EA) didn't have the foresight to create something like a court system before even launching the game. Not one online game has ever had 100% success in getting rid of "griefing" type activities and that should have been acknowledged up front.

The way I think this would work would be to give people the ability to "file suit" against one another in the game. One filing wouldn't trigger anything since the court system would subsequently be as overloaded as the one in real life. You could set a number (maybe 100?) so that once that number of suits was reached against a single person the court system would be activated. A judge would be selected from available GMs and they would inform both parties (the last to file suit would be the complainant [sp?] and of course the respondant) via e-mail to get their evidence (not to exceed 5k) together for trial and submitted two hours before the trial (trial date/time set at a time when both parties are typically online). Note that if either party doesn't show up to trial they would be subject to a one-week suspension without appeal.

The GM would then review the evidence and decide (subject to review by their supervisor) if the case has merit. If it does, then an hour before trial the GM would send out jury requests to 50 potential jurors (these would be random and would not include anyone who has sued, or been sued by, either of the two parties to the suit; maybe even chosen from another server entirely). Out of those 50, the first 13 (no hung juries) to show up at the virtual courthouse (by selecting it from a menu) would be empaneled. These jurors would then read the documents (logs) submitted before trial.

Once trial starts and both parties are present, each would have the opportunity to examine the other by asking five fairly simple questions. The judge would enforce a time limit of one minute for the question and the response. Each party could have one witness, allowed to participate in two questions each. The judge can then ask two questions of each party.

Once all that's done, the jury votes for the complainant or the defendant. If the complainant loses, they are suspended for two days for wasting the court's time. If the defendant loses, their punishment would be decided by the judge based both on the current act and potentially any prior acts (lost suits), ranging from a one-week suspension to complete banning. A trial under these circumstances, by the way, should clock in at under an hour.

By the way, disabling people's chat in the courtroom during this time (except for those asking or being asked questions) would be a given.

Finally, a tag would be put on the defendant, win or lose. Their suit counter would drop in half so that fewer filings would be required over the next two months to activate a trial. Further, if someone loses three suits as a defendant they're banned.

Doesn't all that sound like fun? Well, probably as much fun as The Sims Online is likely to get, anyway. :)

Re:killallhumans

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay my taxes so that my life is enjoyable, but I have to deal with crazy shit every day! Where can't I find crime, extortion, etc. in any city?

Re:Middle America meets MMO*s

[Repton]

I'm afraid the sims players who can't handle a group of people pee'ing on their lawns will have to develop a thicker skin if they choose to play online games with strangers. If you think that's bad, wait until you play a PvP game.

I hate this sort of attitude.

Why should people be obliged to put up with harrassment just because it's online?

Is there some kind of rule somewhere that says the only sort of fun you're allowed to have online is antisocial PvP-style conflict?

What really gets me is the suggestion of law to control MMO*s. Really now, its just a game.

The "just a game" line shows up now and again in a MUD I play on. It usually looks something like this:

"Hi there! Sorry I abused a bug, repeatedly killed you, looted your corpse, and generally harrassed you. I know you've logged thousands of hours on this MUD, made many close friends, had memorable experiences, collected objects to remind you of particular events or special people who have left. But hey! It's just a game. So don't get so uptight!"

I'm not sure laws are appropriate (or workable). But an MMOG --- particularly one such as the Sims --- is _not_ "just a game".