Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Molly · 02-18-2005, 11:12 AM

Tyche; Feb. 18 2005,00:26
That’s fine by me, I enjoy a good discussion too. Many of your suggestions are really interesting too.
However, some things that look very easy theoretically are a lot harder to apply in praxis. I believe you are not actively running a mud ATM - (no offence intended, just an observation) – so maybe you forgot a bit about the every day problems that running a Mud entails. (Just like old time players tend to forget how it felt to be a newbie).

Take for instance your idea of removing snoop and wizinvis completely. It’s true that both commands can be abused extensively for intruding on player privacy. But both are also very useful as tools for the staff.

Most imms for instance go wizinvis while they are working on a project, because they don’t want to be disturbed by player questions, while on the other hand they don’t want to appear rude by ignoring them. As for snoop, I use it myself pretty regularly, for instance in the following situations;
1. When a player claims that his char, or some command or quest, is bugged, to find out what is causing the problem, by asking them to repeat the action while I watch. (Usually it turns out to be caused by a bad alias or bad settings in the mud client, but that’s another story).
2. Guiding a new Builder through the first steps of OLC, since that makes it possible to give them immediate input at each stage, which they otherwise cannot receive while they are in the editor.
3. Following a new player through some part of mudschool, to check if the instructions there work as intended.
4. Monitoring when a new zone is testplayed, because some weaknesses only are revealed when the zone is played by someone else than the creator. (You tend to get ‘home blind’ to your own errors, that’s only human).

Actually the easiest way to really address the privacy problem, would be to send a message to the victim each time a snoop command is toggled. We’ve chosen to restrict is to imp level instead. After all, if you cannot trust the imps to be mature about the game they run, who can you trust?

I assume that by this you mean an extended ‘ignore command’ or ‘filter’, which allows one player to block out not only private tells, but all communication channels and actions like emote, socials, title etc. from another player?

It would be quite possible to code, the command ‘coventry’ that we have works pretty much that way, although it is an imm command, and isn’t restricted to single player communications, it blocks out all output from the player affected by it. I can see how an extended ignore command or ‘filter’ might be of use for very sensitive players, who for instance would like to block out bad language or twinkish rants. But it also has its definite drawbacks, since problem players would take advantage of it.
Picture the following scenario:

Player A dislikes player B and takes every chance of back-talking him, accusing him of several vile actions, which incidentally all are blatant lies. Since Player B thinks Player A is a jerk, he has long ago ‘filtered’ him out, so he is totally unaware of the rumours that are spreading right under his very nose - and rumours spread incredibly fast in a mud. Since he doesn’t contest anything that player A says, even when he is present in the same room, the other players naturally assume that the allegations are all true. Player B might only become aware of the situation when other players start treating him with growing resentment, unless one of his true friends informs him of what is going on. By then it may already be too late. A lie, repeated often enough and not contested, becomes the truth to many people. And Player B, a decent guy, is now the pariah of the mud, while the real jerk, Player A thrives.

As much as I dislike playing nanny and listening to the daily grieves, complaints, tattling and plain whining – (and I admit that I DO dislike tattling and whining intensely) - someone has to do it, or things would soon get out of hand. I still believe that active imms or ‘Game-masters’ are necessary in any game.

I know your pet peeve is that all bugs are the fault of the Admin, because ‘they suck’, but regardless of how hard we try, bugs will still appear, especially in a developing Mud. We may call ourselves ‘immortals’ but we’re still human. New features may have flaws that aren’t fully worked out and need to be tested in active gameplay. People will get stuck in no-exit rooms that they weren’t supposed to have teleported into in the first place, and need help to get out. Scripts sometimes screw up due to some unforeseen change in the main code. Blatant harassment or just globally annoying twinkishness has to be dealt with. All this usually on a daily basis.

And even the players who whine the most about ‘interfering imms’ usually are the first to come screaming for help, when they run into some problem themselves. A fact is that most players like to see at least one active imm on line. It makes them feel safe. And they also like being able to actually talk to the imms and to get a personal response to their ideas or needs. Why else would ‘Active imms that care’ be such a common point when people list what they expect from a 'good Mud'?

02-18-2005, 11:12 AM	#37
Molly Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Home MUD: 4 Dimensions Posts: 574	Tyche; Feb. 18 2005,00:26 That’s fine by me, I enjoy a good discussion too. Many of your suggestions are really interesting too. However, some things that look very easy theoretically are a lot harder to apply in praxis. I believe you are not actively running a mud ATM - (no offence intended, just an observation) – so maybe you forgot a bit about the every day problems that running a Mud entails. (Just like old time players tend to forget how it felt to be a newbie). Take for instance your idea of removing snoop and wizinvis completely. It’s true that both commands can be abused extensively for intruding on player privacy. But both are also very useful as tools for the staff. Most imms for instance go wizinvis while they are working on a project, because they don’t want to be disturbed by player questions, while on the other hand they don’t want to appear rude by ignoring them. As for snoop, I use it myself pretty regularly, for instance in the following situations; 1. When a player claims that his char, or some command or quest, is bugged, to find out what is causing the problem, by asking them to repeat the action while I watch. (Usually it turns out to be caused by a bad alias or bad settings in the mud client, but that’s another story). 2. Guiding a new Builder through the first steps of OLC, since that makes it possible to give them immediate input at each stage, which they otherwise cannot receive while they are in the editor. 3. Following a new player through some part of mudschool, to check if the instructions there work as intended. 4. Monitoring when a new zone is testplayed, because some weaknesses only are revealed when the zone is played by someone else than the creator. (You tend to get ‘home blind’ to your own errors, that’s only human). Actually the easiest way to really address the privacy problem, would be to send a message to the victim each time a snoop command is toggled. We’ve chosen to restrict is to imp level instead. After all, if you cannot trust the imps to be mature about the game they run, who can you trust? I assume that by this you mean an extended ‘ignore command’ or ‘filter’, which allows one player to block out not only private tells, but all communication channels and actions like emote, socials, title etc. from another player? It would be quite possible to code, the command ‘coventry’ that we have works pretty much that way, although it is an imm command, and isn’t restricted to single player communications, it blocks out all output from the player affected by it. I can see how an extended ignore command or ‘filter’ might be of use for very sensitive players, who for instance would like to block out bad language or twinkish rants. But it also has its definite drawbacks, since problem players would take advantage of it. Picture the following scenario: Player A dislikes player B and takes every chance of back-talking him, accusing him of several vile actions, which incidentally all are blatant lies. Since Player B thinks Player A is a jerk, he has long ago ‘filtered’ him out, so he is totally unaware of the rumours that are spreading right under his very nose - and rumours spread incredibly fast in a mud. Since he doesn’t contest anything that player A says, even when he is present in the same room, the other players naturally assume that the allegations are all true. Player B might only become aware of the situation when other players start treating him with growing resentment, unless one of his true friends informs him of what is going on. By then it may already be too late. A lie, repeated often enough and not contested, becomes the truth to many people. And Player B, a decent guy, is now the pariah of the mud, while the real jerk, Player A thrives. As much as I dislike playing nanny and listening to the daily grieves, complaints, tattling and plain whining – (and I admit that I DO dislike tattling and whining intensely) - someone has to do it, or things would soon get out of hand. I still believe that active imms or ‘Game-masters’ are necessary in any game. I know your pet peeve is that all bugs are the fault of the Admin, because ‘they suck’, but regardless of how hard we try, bugs will still appear, especially in a developing Mud. We may call ourselves ‘immortals’ but we’re still human. New features may have flaws that aren’t fully worked out and need to be tested in active gameplay. People will get stuck in no-exit rooms that they weren’t supposed to have teleported into in the first place, and need help to get out. Scripts sometimes screw up due to some unforeseen change in the main code. Blatant harassment or just globally annoying twinkishness has to be dealt with. All this usually on a daily basis. And even the players who whine the most about ‘interfering imms’ usually are the first to come screaming for help, when they run into some problem themselves. A fact is that most players like to see at least one active imm on line. It makes them feel safe. And they also like being able to actually talk to the imms and to get a personal response to their ideas or needs. Why else would ‘Active imms that care’ be such a common point when people list what they expect from a 'good Mud'?