>That's what I meant - eventually, we're going to need
>human-operated laws and enforcement in these things. Step 1
>would be empowering the GMs to actually do things based on the
>info they have available in these grey areas, instead of
>parroting "I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do."

Heh, only in part to cover having written a big treatise based on something
you didn't imply :o) I want to add to it a bit.
The problem with enforcement of game laws by actual humans is several-fold,
to start, nobody (currently defined as OSI and Verant and I am sure this is
true for AC as well ) can afford to have their support staffed by mature,
responsible people trained in conflict mediation and resolution, because
said folks (with or without the training) largely need to earn a living
wage. So they end up hiring people who think the job is cool enough to
accept a low salary. And while I am sure the two populations (mature,
responsible/accepts cool over money) have some intersect, I don't believe it
is going to be a huge pool to draw from.
The "cool" aspect is another problem, how "cool" is a job if no one knows
you or sees you doing it? This leads to GM/player fraternization, which
leads to the *perception* of favoritism whether favoritism exists or not.
Even if you ignore the worst excesses *cough*UO's Smurf/GM sex
scandal*cough* you still are going to have major problems when staff is
making judgement calls that favor one player over another. People will
fairly want due process. How's THAT for overhead costs?
This is in part why I was only a Smurf during a time I wasn't, er,
agitating, and why I never accepted creating story through "official
channels", the stuff I was doing was volatile enough that all perceptions of
favoritism had to be avoided.
So, as much as I despise sharing a zone with jerks, as much as I really
truly, in my heart of hearts just want everyone to have high quality fun, I
don't see a way to regulate social behavior except the sum average of
collective agreement.

Tszaaz/Tengu