> "No, the game designer gets to enforce the rules."
Is that an edict handed down from on high? The majority has the power to enforce rules (they can impose social consequences on rule-breakers) and they usually have a good deal of wisdom about what rules are worth enforcing. They clearly do enforce them, and who says they shouldn't?
Who says they should, especially when the "enforcing" can be distilled down to plain old bullying and threatening? If I were the game designer, those ones would be the first to go and then maybe the professor.
Well, I support giving players better tools; for example, being able to bar the professor's character from the zone by player vote. However, without that, shaming is about the best one can do.
I think the fundamental reason that they should is that players are the ones playing the game the most, and in my experience, the most active players usually have a more accurate understanding of what's fun and what's fair than the game designers.
I don't condone death threats; bad behavior comes in all flavors.
Is that an edict handed down from on high? The majority has the power to enforce rules (they can impose social consequences on rule-breakers) and they usually have a good deal of wisdom about what rules are worth enforcing. They clearly do enforce them, and who says they shouldn't?