Reading over this thread, I actually think I like it better when people flame America. Politics seems... less petty.

Here's a novel idea, why not have all the free muds post in their mud description on the ranking list that they are free?

Just couldn't resist,
Ytrewtsu

P2P owners are being victimized to a certain extent because mud owners are, by and large, of the same mindset as are people on say, slashdot.  Because their hobby has been free for quite some time, and because many of the most important people in the world of mudding provided their game/codebases/expertise for free, the mud community tends to dislike the idea that some people are making money off this hobby.  That should surprise no one.

The relevance of this is that when we are talking about the mud community, and the community that these boards are trying to create, there is obviously a natural bias against p2p.  I have that bias, which isn't to say I think p2p muds are evil, I just faintly dislike the introduction of money into one of my favored hobbies.

As many have pointed out, this is not "topfreemudsites".  Perhaps this debate however, would be more constructive if it were over the question of whether or not this *should* be something like topfreemudsites.  If this community is largely composed of free mudders and they find that the top 20 list represents them not at all, then they should speak out, as Orion has.  Of course, topmudsites is not a democracy, and this is all Synozeer's realm, but it doesn't hurt to debate.

I'm not advocating kicking p2p off the list entirely, but I would be strongly in favor of putting a dollar sign next to p2p mud's names in the ranking list.  This is a very small gesture that would be fairly significant to many free mud owners, I think.


America is an imperialist power run by hawkish dimwits bent on world domination.  The current president is largely driven by an oedipal complex that spurs him to try to best his father by revisiting George Senior's policies and attempting to one up them.

I hope that elevates the discussion a little in your eyes.

-Sidmouth

[EDIT] Wording and clarification.

Analysis? The point I was attempting to make in reference to the 'stealing' comment was that using inflammatory language to stress your point doesn't do a damned thing to advance ones case.

However, I will admit to having an aversion to attitudes that imply a sense of entitlement to what others have based on nothing more than wishing you had it too, which is what this seems to be about. Some people seem to think that because they wish this site was something other than what it actually is, that those who accept it for what actually is and choose to take advantage of what it has to offer are somehow in the wrong. This simply has no basis in truth.

As to my 'need analysis', it wasn't an analysis at all. I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to counter what seemed to the the opinion that free muds 'need' the advertising space of the rank listings while the P2P ones do not. Quite simply, who are you to determine the needs of anyone but yourself, or to decide that your needs somehow take precedence over those of others?

Of course, I'm using the generic 'you' in this post, not specifically referring to the individual I quoted.

I think we all recognized it as hyperbole.  Yet, you still managed to quote it as if it were coming from a literal point of view.  If you were criticizing it as mere "inflammatory language," why not simply say so?

I, too, occasionally have aversions.   One of mine is towards hypocrites.  You tell us that we are "wishing" we knew what the board was about and that even though we think it is one thing, it isn't so - because you happen to really know what it is about?  Do you see the irony?  How can you contradict yourself so quickly; you did it in the following sentence.  We don't know what the boards are but you do?    

Another aversion I have is towards people who joined TMS recently and decided to tell us what the board "is."  When people complain about p2p muds we are told this is a banner exchange.  When we complain about p2p administrators, we are admonished for letting the community down.  So which is it?  A banner exchange or a community?  Since I have only been a member a few years, I shall wait for the newly arrived p2p adminstrators to take a vote and tell me which one it actually is.  

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone else bringing up "need" anywhere else in this discussion.  The discussion seemed to center around whether p2p muds should or should not immediately disclose whether they are in fact a p2p mud.  As such, your need issue is really just a red herring and serves no other purpose than to obfuscate the real discussion.

One I share.

I made no assertions whatsoever about what you wished you knew. As to my knowing what it is, I made no claims about that either. I can make observations about what it is not, however. It is not a pink elephant. It is not a jet plane. And it is not a mud list where P2P muds are unwelcome by the only opinions that matters in the least, the site's administrators who have made their intentions self-evident and indisputable by allowing the P2P muds to list themselves here in spite of the whining of self-righteous ninnies who seem to think they are entitled to dominate the site purely on the basis of running a free mud.

You are forgiven.

Reading through, I skipped from page 3 to 6 to interject my humble opinion, so forgive me.

Personally, I think it is unethical for anyone who could otherwise afford advertising to participate in a contest meant to generate free advertising for those who cannot afford it.

I also believe it would be a good idea to force every mud listing to specify free or p2p.

However, I do not believe, in my humble opinion, that the purpose of the ranking contest is to generate free advertising for those who cannot afford it. I would assume that the purpose is to generate bragging rights for whoever makes the Top 10. Free advertising in the way of visibility is just a nice side effect.

If this is true, then I fail to see how p2p muds are behaving unethically by participating in the ranking contest. How does the fact that your players pay to play give you an advantage over someone who's players do not pay? I can see no way that money affects this, unless you are paying your players to vote, which is against the rules, no?

The only issue that I might see as unbalancing is the number of players your mud has, although as a popularity contest, this is sorta the idea. But I can understand some people with a small player base may feel they have no chance of competing. Which is why I offer the following suggestion:

What about offering several Top 10s (or maybe Top 5s), each one for a different player size catagory. Top 10 small player base, Top 10 medium player base, Top 10 large player base. Much like how high school football has different classes. And then list the 3 winners (1 from each catagory) most prominently.

Yagi

I never advocated that p2p muds shouldn't be listed.  And I think the majority of the people just want p2p muds to be upfront about the fact that they are p2p.  They also want p2p muds not to offer certain types of in-game rewards to skew the listing in their favor.

At first I thought that you had something to bring to the conversation, even though we disagreed.  However, this statement clearly demonstrates that you are just an @$$h0l3

This is a bit tangential, but just so everyone knows, it is in fact *not* allowed by TMS. From the rules:

So what is to stop a mud from giving a mud wide reward of (just for example) a full restore if the mud gets one more vote, nothing. The mud could also give out 1000 experience to everyone on the game. This rule does not prevent muds from giving rewards for voting, it only makes sure that if they do it, they give it to everyone on the mud.   In my opinion, this rule will not do what many people thought it was intended to do (prevent games from rewarding people for voting). What it will do is allow muds to reward their playerbase as a whole instead of singularly (like when they hit the vote button).

Just to be clear, my game does not offer rewards of any nature for voting here (although we do have some players who try to encourage it verbally from time to time).

Ytrewtsu
.02 cents of nothing

Interesting, and it certainly puts the practices of certain mud operators in a different perspective if they actually agreed to abide by these policies and then went on renege on the agreement they willingly entered into.

However, whether or not voting incentives are officially allowed, they are obviously tacitly allowed as evidenced by the fact that at least one mud openly defies that rule and hasn't been kicked off the listings.

I've stayed out of this up to now, but this particular quote here just couldn't be let go with one comment. I happen to agree with Ytrewtsu in that this sort of thing does not really stop the practice at all. You simply shift it to a global reward for getting people to vote. The end result is the same. Your players will perceive a reward for voting and thus feel compelled to do so. It's been my experience that the offering of ANY kind of incentive for action results in that action being performed. In the case of employment, the incentive is a paycheck. It's really no different here. The incentive is that the entire mud gets X reward for voting, so they flock here and do just that. If there are indeed muds who are violating the letter of these rules, they should be kicked off. As zealously as the Diku license is defended, I see no reason why TMS rules shouldn't get equal zealousness.

As for the whole debate about P2P, I personally don't like the idea of paying for a mud. Especially if they also charge for the software I need to collect AND assess a monthly subscription. If that makes me a software pirate, as was hinted at pages ago, so be it. I fail to see how that could be so though. I'd be all for P2P muds simply being open about it. Would solve everything. Stick a $ in the ranking list.

Please dont' forget that the boards and the "membership" were reset within the past year. Many administrators who appear "new" have actually been a part of TMS for over three years. I, for one, had over 200 posts when we went to the new boards, but I haven't had as much time to be active as I used to now that there's a new baby in my life.

I've always looked at TMS as more than a banner exchange, but I also acknowledge the fact that muds ARE exchanging users because of this site. There's no one thing that TMS is, and it's different things for different people. I don't reallly feel that it's necessary to try to make people feel completely unwelcomed simply because they don't run their mud the same way as others.

Just a quick note - I'm still working on the rewards rules. I might not allow rewards, period. I've been getting some useful help from Matt @ Achaea.

-Synozeer

Sorta, but the rest of your post was so pathetically petty and unimportant it actually downplayed this snippet.

Molly summed it up correctly in my view. Having the most players doesn't make you the best mud.

I think only the most naive sort of mud newbie thinks # of people online = quality of game.

I understand that there are p2p administrators who have been her many years.  That is why I said "newly arrived" adminstrators.

I believe we must accept that there will always be some unscrupulous persons who try to abuse any system at the expense of others, be it income tax, health insurance or just Mud Ranking Lists.

However, as long as those persons get exposed to public disgust and ridicule, I also believe that in the long run they hurt themselves as well as the Community. At least in the case of this list, people with some common sense will dissociate themselves from such sleazy tactics, and react by staying well away from the Mud in question. As for the Twinks, who obviously won’t care one way or another because they are Twinks, they won’t be any great loss to the Community anyhow. Few Mud administrators like Twinks as players.

I may be overstepping a line here, but this statement made me extremely curious. I thought Matt @ Achaea was the one that caused this entire problem. In what way is he being helpful now?

No, the "general attitude" is that a mud which specifically caters to the masses will sacrifice quality in order to attain quantity - and that isn't a phenomenon unique to muds.

Which would you rather add - a groundbreaking technical feature which was unnoticable from a players perspective, or a new "ninja" class which would attract a few new players? The answer depends on your personal priorities.

A commercial mud, by it's very nature, has to reorganise those priorities - it's no longer a hobby, but a business. It might be nice to add a "cool new feature", but if it doesn't add anything to the gameplay then (from a business point of view) it's probably not worth adding - particularly not when you could spend that time developing something which will improve your profits (and for a commericial mud, "players = profit").

Some free muds have a similar attitude, although this is not always the case - but there is certainly some disdain towards those who (as you put it) "sell out" by catering to the players at the expense of their original vision. I suppose you could compare that to the "ex-underground singer" who changes the words in his song to avoid offending people, or shortens the song to fit in a commercial break at the end, or changes his clothes to something more "socially acceptable", etc.

For many of us developing muds as a hobby, the fun comes from pushing the boundries of what has been done before. Innovation is the goal, and the playerbase is just something that happens on the way. For a commercial mud (unless it has very poor business management) the goal is to get a large playerbase, and any innovations are just stepping stones to get there.

He's assisting me with the best way to word the rules so that people can't use loop holes to abuse it. Here's what Matt suggested so far:

I'm still contemplating the best mix of rules and fairness, so any suggestions are welcome.

-Synozeer

Honestly, just don't allow rewards period, let sites stand on their own merit, not the merit of their rewards system. And yes, before anyone even says anything, I will happily stop giving out anything for getting to certain voting ranks or any such reward of any sort myself on my own mud...

I honestly fail how to see this would make any sort of difference. Any mud administration with even a shred of sense with regards to attracting players is going to write a description for the rankings list that will encourage players to take a closer look and then hopefully go on to try out the mud in question. Some commercial muds may figure announcing a free trial period will be a good draw, others may just opt to leave out the fact that the mud requires a fee in order to play and let the player discover that once they've had a closer look at what the mud has to offer. There is nothing underhanded or unethical about either approach. Either way the player will know a fee is involved before any sort of commitment or time and/or emotional investment is made to the mud in question. And any potential player with even a modicum of concern about not wasting their time is going to at least check out the info page in order to see if the mud has the sort of features that they would be looking for. Most players probably would not need more than a few seconds time to discover that a mud is pay-to-play and then make a desicion based on that as to whether or not they are still going to consider the mud for future play.

I agree with Terloch on this. Make it: No rewards for voting are allowed, period. Short and simple.
Too longwinded and complicated rules, and nobody is going to read them.

And there always will be unscrupulous people who’ll use loopholes to abuse the system, you can never make anything 100% foolproof against people like that.

I don't understand the 80% every twelve hours rule.  As I read it, though it doesn't allow specific character rewards, it would be acceptable to say, "10% exp bonus will be renewed every 12 hours as long as we receive 50 votes within that time period."  Though this would be different then the no-holds barred rules of before, it still seems to have the same effect - providing players with repeated in-game rewards

I think that is the best policy.

This way, there is no sneaky way around the rules and voting is not based on which mud can think of the most creative reward method.

KaVir, you raised some very interesting points but I think that topic deserves its own thread. As soon as I finish this post, I am going to start such a thread in the Advanced MUD Concepts forum.

It seems to me we are saying the exact same thing, is there a something I missed?

The reason I think we see so much bitterness towards p2p games here on TMS particularly is that the listing is setup to be a competition.  Bringing out the competitive nature of the various owners is bound to set off these type of reactions.  In a way it was why I was (am) against adding restrictions as to how the votes are garnered by admins.

No matter how many restrictions you place on the way the votes are tallied, there is always bound to be some type of imbalance.  The size of the pbase the largest variable, although most anyone who looks at the list can tell how this is factored in.  But there are so many other, less-obvious ways that determine how often people vote.  The location/size of the voting link and  reminders from admins to vote are two things off the top of my head that if, used to the extremes, act in virtually the same manor as incentives, skewing the rankings away from the dedicated-player votes ( used loosely) towards the games that are using the list as a merely promotion.

Is it now immoral to ask your players to vote, to place any type of reference to the site other than the voting link?  What exactly are people wanting the list to represent?

Yes.

There are times when a mud developer has to choose between quality and quantity.  If your primary goal is to achieve quantity then in that case you're going to sacrifice the quality of the mud; it's simple logic.

However it is a fallacy to automatically assume that a mud with quality doesn't also have quantity (or vice versa).  In fact most commercial muds are fairly high in terms of quality, simply because it helps them achieve quantity.

And as an aside, I've never objected to commercial muds being listed here.