That'd be cool with me as long as there are two categories. One would cover "pay for perks that you can ONLY get with real money" and the other would be "pay for perks that you can obtain for free anyway."

But now you're not talking about free vs. not free. Not you're bringing other factors into it, like enjoyment.

And playing muds isn't a competitive hobby either unless you choose to make it so. Your playstyle is yours.

Ok, you personally don't like it. What's that got to do with anything? If the paintball arena let you play as long as you wanted for free but charged for higher level guns, it's still a free paintball game.

--matt

They -are- free to play. There is nothing in their games that you must pay for in order to get. Nothing is available ONLY if you pay for it. Payment for "perks" is optional, because those "perks" are already available for free.

The only thing I might even consider suggesting is to say exactly that in the listing:

Free to Play; Payment Optional.

I think the analogy of paintball is invalid in this discussion of what's free and what's not. Yes, you can buy pay for perks, such as custom-made weapons, better equipment and such but isn't there a monetary outlay to play anyway? Last time I looked, you couldn't just turn up somewhere and play for free.

With Aetolia, Aardwolf, Achaea, MadROM, Mirkwood, etc. you can turn up and play for free. You can just log in on basic telnet (or a freebie mud client) and play with now capital investment.

From what I know of MadROM and Mirkwood, the IMPs do not accept donations because there is no cost to them for hosting the muds. They cadge server space off academic institutions.

Aardwolf is too big and has too much traffic to live with a free host. Hence it accepts donations so as many people as possible can participate. Aetolia and Achaea are commerical enterprises and must sell stuff within the games to be profitable.

However, this is not to say that Aardwolf, Aetolia and Achaea have no place in this listing. The ranking on TMS is for the most popular mud sites and all three are obviously very popular. And free, more so than paintball or visiting the movies.

I think that maybe a compromise would be to add another option to the Advanced Search on TMC for Pay for Perks That You Can Get In Time Through Normal Gameplay (or accepts donations, or whatever you want to call it). Maybe another one for Commercial Enterprise.

Btw, I quite liked Enola_Phoenix's definition:

You know, if there are people who want to ban all valid interpretations of the word 'free' but their own, let's universally apply that shall we?

So, no claiming you're 'hiring' people anymore unless you're actually hiring them, not just recruiting volunteers.

No claiming that you offer "professional" anything unless you are a professional developer/administrator. (Of course, saying you offer professional-quality <whatever> would be fine.)

I'm not seriously suggesting these, incidentally, though they make more sense than the argument over why 'free' should mean only what a certain, small, segment of site users feel it should mean, despite clearly valid alternative interpretations.
--matt

Yo, the_logos.

On a serious question, why are you so defensive/aggressive against a rhetorical question about what is and is not 'free'? This was mainly bull****tin' between a couple people, and it turned into a major flamewar suddenly.

Edit:: Bleh. Double post. Please remove this one.

I'd imagine it's quite important to a player who is browsing the site to know the difference between "free" and "can-pay-for-perks".  If you don't have money available, or aren't interested in throwing it at a game when free alternatives exist, you're going to want that information before you invent time in a game.  If IRE games are pay-for-perks, and IRE representatives repeatedly point at out that the pay-for-perks model is clearly advertised on their website (*), I don't see what the problem is in openly labeling their games "can-pay-for-perks", and avoiding the contested term "free".  (I've added 'can' to emphasize that you aren't directly forced to pay if you don't mind spending a lot more time and effort than paying customers.)  An incoming player who isn't interested in spending money should know that they will be competing against people who are on a faster track, especially if keeping up with other people (with equal time invested) may involve thousands of US dollars (**).

Summary: Eliminate the word "free" from IRE ads and info, substitute "can-pay-for-perks", everything is clear, Valg is a happy guy.

(*): I happen to disagree there.  I browsed all of the IRE websites, and while it was easy to see that I could buy something called credits, it was incredibly vague about what those credits could do, how important they are, how much time-savings a credit might represent, etc.  That said, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and concede that IRE feels like the information presented is sufficient.

(**): Source: .

A flamewar? Not from me. Whom have I flamed?

And one might ask you the same thing. Why are you so interested in defining the word free in your particular way?

--matt

The same could be said of any feature in any mud. If you aren't interested in a mud with bards, then you're going to want that information before you invest time in a game.


I'd support a can-pay-for-perks-that-can-be-gotten-for-free-anyway (note the difference) option in the mud summary listings. I would, however, continue to advertise our games as being free, because they are.


Similarly, an incoming player who thinks elves are the lamest thing ever and will not play a mud with elves will want to know that elves are in a mud beforehand. Myself, I hate glaives and want to know whether a mud has glaives before I play it.

I won't be happy as long as you advertise having "balanced classes" then. Balanced for what? Balanced for PvP? Monster bashing? Crafting? Attracting mudsex partners? Political activities? Transportation? Fishing? Growing pipeweed? It's very unclear.

What's on our site is not relevant to a discussion of the semantics of the word 'free.' And while I appreciate you giving us the benefit of the doubt, we don't need it. If we wanted to claim we invented muds (a blatant lie obviously), your only real recourse would be the Federal Trade Commission. Just as Karl rules the tank with an iron fin, we rule our websites with Dreamweaver and shell access.

I encourage anyone who believes we're mis-representing ourselves by claiming we're free to contact the FTC with
. They will side with us, of course, given that it's not a misrepresentation.

--matt

All posts posted by you in this thread, the_logos. Some definite flames, others iffy.


Edit: My deepest apologies, Threshold. For some reason, I had a mental fart and replaced your name with the_logos'.

Valq wrote (in part) You're missing the point, again. It IS free. The perks are free. The entire game is free to play. There are also things you can get in the game (perks) that you CANNOT buy, that you MUST get ONLY through playing. The perks you -can- buy, are also free. You can choose to either get them through playing the game OR by paying for them.

I'll repeat that in case someone else is missing the point (and judging by the last several pages of posts, it seems many are missing it):

Achaea et al are FREE. The "perks" or "neato kewl things" are also FREE. You do not have to pay for them AT ALL if you want to get them. You merely have to play the game and you will eventually get them anyway. There are also other ways to get them, which do not require money OR time invested - such as extra effort within the game to help in various things. You will be rewarded with some things for FREE, those same exact things you would get anyway - for FREE.

Now - what part of FREE do you not understand?

Here's the logical inconsistency I see:

In other threads, I've seen the_logos make the case that Achaea et. al having the money=advancement option as well as the time=advancement option is pure benefit.  It allows for a more diverse playerbase because it can attract both people with lots of time and people who have jobs and less time.

That makes a certain amount of sense to me, actually.  If I were someone with a full-time job who wanted to MUD and be competitive on 10 hours a week, I think I would find that kind of option pretty attractive.

It just doesn't make sense to me that, if you honestly believe the pay-for-perks paradigm is not simply a way to generate income but a good thing in and of itself, you wouldn't want to make it very clear that you are that way.

It's like you're saying pay-for-perks is a great thing, but the way you're being uber-defensive and challenging people to talk to the FTC if they don't like the way you do things, it sure seems like you're ashamed of it.  Regardless of how stupid you at times seem to think some of the other posters are, you have to realize that acting as though from shame (I know, you don't see it that way.  I believe an impartial observer would.) is like blood in the water to sharks.  It only inspires more and more poster frenzy.

By all accounts, you've built a good and unique MUD.  I say, be proud of what it is.  Be proud of all the great things about it -- but being a free MUD in the same sense others are isn't one of those things.  Why pretend to be something you're not when you can shine on your own merits?

Started off by you with this post...

Dulan wrote:
Furthermore, I'm noting that certain MUDs have usurped the definition of 'free' after looking at the listings.


Ok, who? If you tell me you weren't referring to us, and why not tell us who you were referring to? Are we going to continue this game of pretending you're not attacking us?

--matt

Oh, it's definitely both. Having said that, I don't believe there's anything superior about our business model. It's a model. Accepting no money is a model. Pay-for-play is a model. They're all just different, not inferior or superior. They may be inferior or superior for certain people but overall they just...are.


No, I'm saying pay-for-perks offers something for some people that subscription and free games do not. That's not really debatable. I've played games with all three of those business models myself and have enjoyed something about all of them. The most recent mud I played was City of Heroes, which is subscription based. I tell you, I was dying to be able to pay for perks as I just did not have the time to grind my way through the levels to the higher end content. No doubt other people would prefer not to have that option available though, just like some prefer roleplaying over hack n' slash or vice versa. They're just choices, but there are a lot of people who seem to associate 'good' and 'evil' with business models.  

Yeah, you're definitely seeing it wrong. I don't mind discussions about our games of any kind going on though. I figure if people are going to attack us, we'll just accept the extra traffic it brings. Why do you think Medievia has a lot of players? Because it gets slammed a lot. There really is almost no such thing as bad press, especially to a small online business.

Thanks! Yes, I am proud of all our muds. However, we ARE free, and whether it's exactly the same free as others is not really the point. As Jazuela pointed out (and she's not one of our players), we are, in every way, completely free. In no way are you ever required to pay money for -anything-. You have the option. Frankly, I think that option exists in nearly all muds. I suspect if I offered 50k to the head admin of <pick your mud> with a signed contract never to reveal the nature of the transaction, I could buy just about anything I wanted in that game. I know some people will object and say, "Oh, not me!" but I'll leave it up to the readers to believe that or not. $50,000. You'd take it. How about a billion? It's a ridiculous example obviously, but if there is -any- price at which things are for sale, openly or privately, then you have a pay-for-perks situation. And realistically, for 99% of hobbyist mud admins, it wouldn't take 50k to buy a single thing. I'm sure $500 would get me some gold or a sword or whatever. ####, I did it myself once on a mud called ZombieMud way back in 1993 or so. (I was the player buying something secretly from the admin).

If they wish to distinguish themselves in some way, they're free to use a more descriptive term. It's also worth noting that the loudest voices calling for this are the same people who attack us whenever possible. Another reason not to care. The line the Michael Bolton character has in Office Space about his name comes to mind, though more in the, "Why should I change? They're the ones with the problem." sense.
--matt

Reading this thread carefully, you are claiming that KaVir attacks you whenever possible now, the_logos?

After your last post, do you mean -your- definition of free, or whose definition of free, the_logos?

Kindly define 'free' to be used in that context. So far, you haven't offered a definition, and hence, nothing constructive can be addressed.

He does it a lot, yes. He's not as blatant about it most of the time as a couple others are though.

Are you going to answer my question about which muds you were referring to or dodge the question, yet again?

My definition of free in this context (there are many different meanings of the word 'free' after all, depending on the context) is that it doesn't cost any money. That describes Achaea, Aetolia, Imperian, Aardwolf, Carrion Fields, Armaggedon, and so on.

Just go read Jazuela's post on the top of this page. If you still don't understand, ask again.

--matt

Okay.

So we are using a definition that allows for the administration gaining money for anything short of subscriptions as free?

Then to the best of my knowledge, there are no places usurping free.

However, if you mean your other free, then I can name a good dozen places that are usurping free just off the front page likely.

My definition? Let's see...

From rumors, current information I have and whatnot..

The MUD that I was originally poking at, Nodeka, was based on some stuff I've heard repeatedly.

Aardwolf, Achaea and Imperian. Icesus possibly.

Dunno about any but Achaea and Imperian for sure, however, as it's just hearsay/rumors of money being charged for services rendered. Achaea and Imperian more or less proved themselves in this thread, however.

Noted, the_logos.

Just hearsay and rumors, bud.

Furthermore, you'll note that I used -my- definition of free, and explicitly stated it as such.

I believe my specific wording was, "Any in-game benefits that can be bought via money"?

Do I get to question your reading comprehension in an ad hominem personal attack/logical fallacy now? C'mon, it'll be fun! .... Or something.

the_logos: Posted: Aug. 24 2004,00:41
There he goes again, broadly insulting the community.

Just because HE wouldn’t hesitate doing an unethical - or even illegal - act and because he once found another Mud Administrator that is as crooked as himself, does this give him the right to insult everybody on the list?

It’s funny how people who lack ethics and moral completely themselves often like to assume that the rest of the world is the same as they are. I don’t really know why. It cannot be to ease their conscience, since they obviously haven’t got any. So it must be because they think they can get some benefit from it.

the_logos: Posted: Aug. 24 2004,00:41
There he goes again, broadly insulting the community.

Just because HE wouldn’t hesitate doing an unethical - or even illegal - act and because he once found another Mud Administrator that is as crooked as himself, does this give him the right to insult everybody on the list?

It’s funny how people who lack ethics and moral completely themselves often like to assume that the rest of the world is the same as they are. I don’t really know why. It cannot be to ease their conscience, since they obviously haven’t got any. So it must be because they think they can get some benefit from it.

Chuckle. Oh yes, clearly most hobbyist admins wouldn't sell me, say, a wooden club in the game for $10 million. Heh, SONY would sell me a wooden club in Everquest for $10 million. But yes, you're obviously right Molly. *pat pat*  

--matt
P.S. You're wrong, and insisting otherwise is just silly.

P.S. I wouldn't.

No matter how much you offered me. And I'm serious. It's been tried on me before.

10 million? Show me the money. Untill then, you are full of crap. And even in that case, I still would refuse the money.

Plus, your example is a logical fallacy.




Go read up on them, please the_logos. I don't see why I'm bothering with pointing out all of these at this point.

That seems reasonable IMO, although I would suggest replacing the "pay for perks that you can obtain for free anyway" with a more explicit "pay for perks that can also be obtained through normal gameplay".  This is because I've seen at least one mud which offered huge in-game advantages for sale (advantages without which you couldn't legitimately compete) - but also allowed people to earn those same rewards by performing other services (like writing articles for them, etc).

Therefore I'd see three categories:

1) Money makes no difference.

2) Money can replace gameplay in some instances.

3) Money can give you things gameplay cannot.

I suppose there could even be another category, whereby money can buy status symbols which don't really directly affect gameplay (fancy titles, named equipment, etc).  But for me the important thing to know is "can other players buy what I have to work for", and even more importantly "can they buy things that I can't earn even through play".

Regarding the claims that I attack you whenever possible, I really don't think you're in any position to start pointing fingers.  Indeed, I can't think of anyone on these forums who's provoked or insulted as many people as you have over the last couple of years, and indeed I consider you one of the main reasons for the decline of the quality of posts (a decline which even started to right itself when you stopped posting for a while, but which seems to have continued again now).

Re: Dulan - Don't forget the "Generalizing from Self" (eg "I'm a liar. Therefore, I don't believe what you're saying"). Or better yet, click .

Dulan, you've never had a mud worth 100k much less 10 million, much less a mud in which someone would pay 10 million for a wooden club. Nobody has offered you 10 million for anything in your life, and to claim that you have been is, frankly, absurd.

It's a hypothetical, obviously. I don't have 10 million and there is no text mud in existence I'd pay 10 million for anymore. And you wouldn't refuse the money. What's worse, you know it, but want to big yourself up.

There's no point in debating this anymore. You and Molly are living in some sort of delusional fantasy.

--matt
P.S. PLEASE learn to use 'logical fallacy' in the proper context, given that it's your favorite two words.

You just strawmanned my argument, the_logos.

And it's all that can be used against you, as you so flagrantly abuse them.

You've actually managed to use _4_ _seperate_ _fallacies_ in TWO FREAKING SENTENCES.

Enough said.

As for "bigging myself up", no. Offer me 10 million in cash for, say, a wooden club in a MUD I admin/imm on?

I'll get it for you as a player. But that's not happening from an imm. However, as noted, that "hypothetical question" was a logical fallacy intended for one purpose and one purpose alone.

P.S. It is being used in the proper context. You, apparently, still don't understand what one is - after all this time. And yes, I still remember that Traithe argument quite distinctly - the second I used logical fallacies on yourself, you began falling apart. Traithe saved your ass, but only as an amused third-party.

I also want a "Has glaives" or "doesn't have glaives" option since that's what I care about, not whether it charges money or not. One thing is important to you. Another is important to me.

I don't care if people get insulted by my opinions. I don't care if they get provoked by things I do. That's their problem, not mine. What I do try to do is avoid flaming or attacking people who don't do it to me first, and I think you'll find virtually no examples of me doing that. There may be one or two (who knows, it's been a couple years), but I'm fairly scrupulous about attacking only individuals who attack me or our company first.

Take Molly O'Hara for instance. She apparently hates me because I pointed out that builders are not valued the same as coders. Controversial? Shouldn't be. Professional developers certainly disagree as is made clearly evident by games industry salary surveys. Fine, she's insulted. Tough, it's true.

I just don't care if people get provoked or insulted by statements like that. I don't care if people get provoked or insulted by pointing out the obvious, such as the fact that there are no muds where SOME amount of money (make it a trillion if you want. Just hypothetical) wouldn't buy somebody SOMETHING. Any mud admin claiming otherwise is either Bill Gate's heir or lying to us or himself/herself.

So yes, I will definitely accept that I'm controversial and people get provoked by the things I do or say, but as I've said before, that's their problem and individuals do not get attacked by me anyway until they attack me first.

I mean, seriously, if you want to talk about quality of discussion, go back and read Molly's ridiculous post. Or how about the 10 page thread in which people argued about Kimberly's psychotic ranting. I'd suggest blaming them for the garbage posts, not me, as they're the ones that posted them.

In any case, this is one thread I'm done with. We're free and have no reason to stop advertising our muds as such. Jazuela's post really said it all.
--matt

Dulan said:

So your whole argument is based on rumors and hearsay and you've had no direct experience of these muds? Go out there, make characters on each of these muds and attempt to buy stuff before you make accusations.

the_logos wrote:

This is an opinion, not a logical argument. How can it be a logical_fallacy?

By the way, I have found plenty of IMMs that have created such equipment out of friendship, not even bothering about money. I remember the first mud I played, one such IMM said "oh, you've reached level 50, have a new weapon" and suddenly I was doing double damage with ever hit. How about we add another category for corrupt IMMs?

I really should have learned by now that trying to hold any sort of constructive debate with you is a waste of time. I try to provide a compromise, and all I get in return is sarcasm. No wonder your own mud forums were such a flop.

Or those who suggest anything which might work against your company's best interests...like, for example, fair advertising.

But it's not really individuals I'm talking about - you seem to have the habit of attacking entire groups of people, and you've done it repeatedly. The first time I saw mention of you was a post of yours on MUD-DEV where you said you'd never consider recruiting someone who had ever worked on a free mud because they'd be irrepairably damaged by that experience. And your attitude since then doesn't seem to have improved at all - it's almost as if you're deliberately trying to ruin these forums for the rest of us, to turn them into a never-ending flamewar with the Medthievia attitude of "all publicity is good publicity".

I apologise for the double quote in there. I'm not exactly used to this message-board thing. Much prefer the note editing system that I've used for the last 5 years on Aardwolf.

Strawmanned? Is this some reference to the Lou Reed song?

Could you explain this term to me, preferably with one of those natty links you do?

R*O*F*L

Does this guy think he is God, or is it just a common case of megalomania? And he thinks that _he_  is the one with the problem.

This is hilarious!

And here is another juicy titbit from the same person:

So this guy, who likes to pose as the big Tycoon of the Mud world, freely admits that he bought a cheat sword from some shady Mudowner for 500 bucks to advance his player. And he doesn’t even have the decency-among-thieves to keep his end of the bargain, and keep quiet about the shady transaction. He spills the beans on an open discussion board, giving the name of the other party as well.

Some role model for the kiddies, huh?

And then on top of it all he claims that Sony would sell him a cheat weapon in Everquest, (for a considerably larger sum, but still). That is libel if ever I saw it. I wonder what the Sony people would think if they read this board. maybe someone should mail them the link.

Is this guy for real?

I sleep for a night and have to catch up on 2 pages of the_logos. This is a little late, but I'd like to thank Molly for sticking up for everyone, us hobbyist don't do it for the money, and anyone who is that desperate to pay a large sum for an item on a game, I'd think fishy anyway.

What I want to know, what is free? I think I'll start a poll here in a moment, but Jazuela's opinion of free, is just that her opinion it doesn't seem to be that of the majority. the_logos can't tell us what free is, but keeps referring to others (convenient that they posted a subject on free for him) errrr for the discussion, since he made sure we knew she wasn't a player of his mud. Was that done with 10k or a Million dollars to get her to post that for you so, you wouldn't have to actually make a solid statement? (Oh yeah, I'm directly attacking you the_logos, its a conspiracy were all out to get you)

So the_logos and without referring to anyone else. What is free, you're defintion don't crow the screen with quotes, just tell us what free is?

Get yer straw man right !

I see ad hominem, but it is, of course, irrelevant. I'm no logical expert, and I certainly don't know every term for every fallacy, but I think the argument stands.

The Logos says that you (Dulan) would accept money, which is an unsubstantiated but reasonable claim. You deny the accusation. There is no more evidence for your point than the Logos'. Both sides are so hypothetical as to be meaningless.

I contend that $10 million is so many orders of magnitude off from the prices of all pay-for-perk options I've ever seen that it's an entirely different game. Offer enough money and you can buy almost anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's for sale. If a MUD has never sold anything and has no intention of selling anything, it can reasonably claim to be free of perks.

As I see it, there are two separate arguments here that have become muddled. One is free versus subscription. Some MUDs require all players to pay in order to play. Others do not. This is a clear case of free versus not free. Achaea, Aetolia, and Imperian are free by this definition. You may play forever and never spend a cent. There may also be MUDs for which players are required to pay a one-time fee analogous to purchasing the game. I don't know of any, but it's a model that could exist. Thus, we have free, subscription, and one-time fee.

The second argument is over perks, and there are really several types. There are MUDs with no perks whatsoever (the vast majority of MUDs fit here, in fact). There are MUDs with perks that are available through gameplay (IRE's games). There are MUDs with perks only available for pay . Furthermore, under both types with perks, they can be either cosmetic or gameplay-affecting. The list is thus perk-free, cosmetic perks available for pay or through gameplay, game-affecting perks available for pay or through gameplay, cosmetic perks available for pay only, and game-affecting perks available for pay only.

Obviously this can be broken down even more into level of effect and other "analog" details, but this system looks like a good categorization of the "digital" pay traits. Whether or not it's useful and informative is up to you.

<blink> Woah I totally missed that part of the thread, where Dulan claims Shadows of Isuldur doesn't fit "his" definition of free.

Dood - SoI is free, according to EVERY definition of the word. Not only yours, but even (gasp) the dictionary's definition! Imagine that.

It's a DIKU deriv. It's also a Tolkein-based world, and he just went through #### and back to secure permission for his game to continue existing.

Of all the people who post on this forum, I'd say Traithe has the most integrity. SoI doesn't charge anything for their game. You can't give them money for any part of their game. They're not allowed to take it (though I believe they do accept voluntary donations to cover the cost of their server...), they're not allowed to ask for it, and they are very straight-forward in this.

Man..Dulan that was just a ludicrous accusation. Maybe you should lay off the crack or something.

Accusation or not, crack, come on seriously, have we resorted to using such flames as drug abuse. He said it was based on heresay, drop that discussion at top.

Jazuela: No reading comprehension? None at all?

I stressed that SoI comments were based on rumor/hearsay.

I have no direct experience with SoI, albeit, I am going to be playing it in the future. The hearsay/rumors moved it up on my list to be played significantly, I admit, but that does not mean that I know for sure one way or the other if it does.

Stop pulling Achaea's in this discussion, please. If you can't bother to read all of a post, don't read it at all.

Traithe: Hearsay/rumors. An aside, I tend to audit MUDs that have hearsay about license violations before others, and hearsay/rumors are the best ways to find out who does and does not I find. I could begin auditing MUDs from the TMC list alphabetically, but that is a lot of work as it takes me between 40 to 80 hours just to audit -one- MUD. Not very fun. Albeit, the rumors -did- get SoI moved up on my list to be audited, so there is a benefit for you from that.

As for the apparently offensive remark about SoI, my apologies. I did stress, however, that it was merely rumor. I will be editing the post, however, to remove SoI in a bit. Again, my apologies - I thought that stressing it as hard as I did that it was merely rumor would have less of a reaction from yourself.

Cierel: Too many levels of information.
Free
Pay for Perks
Pay to Play.

You can easily break up Pay to Play in at least as many levels of definition as Pay for Perks. At this point, that is irrelevant. Or perhaps this would be better.

Free
Optional Payment
Payment Required

Is that any better? It completely removes any argument related to the MUD itself, as either payment is required - subscription-based - payment is optional - perk-based - or there is no payment.

aardfrith: Same comment as Jaz - reading comprehension. I stressed in the post that it was merely rumors.


As for the_logos? I just plain don't like him. Period. I have to admit, I do hold some measure of respect for him due to his accomplishments with respect to MUDs, but that's only at what he would term a "professional" level. On a personal level, he disgusts me as he has the same beliefs as Vryce apparently with respect to advertisement, as well as the same god-complex as Vryce.

Feel free to flame that statement, but it's my honest opinion. While Achaea/the_logos has a moral advantage on Vryce, Achaea's at about the same level as him ethically - note KaVir's post.

I've mentioned it SEVERAL times in this thread. No logical debate, no real argument whatsoever. Just tons of logical fallacies with his only intent to gain advertisment for his MUD. Furthermore, he will not respond to points that are inconvenient to him. Even if he is completely dead wrong, he will make constant use of the strawman logical fallacy - he never addresses any strong points of his opponents, only the weak points. Only in trolls have I ever seen such a blatant lack of respect for an opponent on the internet.

####, I half-suspect Kimberly is a creation of his merely to gain publicity at this point.

-D

Oh yeah. And this post is not representative of any person, place, or thing other then merely myself. So there.

the_logos, in response to Dulan, Aug. 24 2004, 04:24
the_logos, in response to me, Aug. 24 2004, 03:41
----
Trying to patronise people, or calling them silly or delusional in an attempt to diminish their arguments is very bad debate technique. I guess Dulan would call it logical fallacies. I'll just call it very bad form and bad netiquette, and something that certain people, who lack the sense of decency that most people are equipped with, will resort to when they run out of arguments.

You are right about one thing though; There is no point in debating ethics and moral with a person like you. Just as little point as there is in debating music with a tone deaf person or colour schemes with someone that is colour blind. If you lack the properties yourself - or even have no clue about the meaning of the words - you can obviously not debate it.

My comment was not meant as an attempt to debate with you either. I have long since given up any attempt to debate with you, since you always resort to the above methods instead of addressing the real issues. I rather meant it as an alert to the rest of the posters on the list, in case the spam made them miss what type of person you just painted yourself out as.

I don't live in a delusional fantasy. I am quite aware that people exist in the world, who live by the standards: ‘If it is not illegal – do it, and to #### with ethics and moral! If it IS illegal –####, do it anyhow, as long as the profit outweighs the risk of getting sued, or even caught!’

I just don’t assume that everybody is like that. I even believe that the ones that do exist are a very small minority. If they weren’t, the society, as it is, would not exist for much longer. Just as predators would soon be extinct if there was nothing left to prey on.

I believe that most people are decent and honest and have some sort of built-in sense of right and wrong. Calling me delusional because of that belief really tells a lot more about you than about me.

the_logos, in response to KaVir:
---
Again: handing out your own theories of why people disagree with or dislike you, in an attempt of bettering your own case, is equally bad debate technique, especially if you try to present them as facts, not theories.

For your information: I don’t dislike you - (I won’t even use a childish word like hate) - because we once had a disagreement in a discussion about builders. The main object of a Discussion Board is to ventilate different opinions. If only one opinion is allowed, all discussions soon die down. Over the years I have disagreed with a lot of people on these boards – (including KaVir) – and most of us still manage to be civil to each other.  

The reason why you irritate me is your general obnoxious attitude, which you have displayed in numerous cases, here and in other places. For example recently with THIS declaration:

the_logos, in response to KaVir, Aug. 24 2004,04:44
---
Guess what? If you get a reputation for repeatedly insulting and provoking a lot of people, it IS your problem. Not theirs. But I suppose you wouldn’t understand that either.

KaVir to the_logos: Aug. 24 2004,04:19
[quote]Regarding the claims that I attack you whenever possible, I really don't think you're in any position to start pointing fingers.  Indeed, I can't think of anyone on these forums who's provoked or insulted as many people as you have over the last couple of years, and indeed I consider you one of the main reasons for the decline of the quality of posts (a decline which even started to right itself when you stopped posting for a while, but which seems to have continued again now).[quote]

---
Hear, hear! I couldn’t agree more.

Your apology is accepted - thank you.

The recent business with the Tolkien folks has me a little on edge regarding our image in the community, at least insofar as any commercial aspects go, and so I'm trying as best I can to make sure there are no lingering misconceptions that could bring trouble our way (again).

Sinuhe, replying to the_logos:
ROFL, indeed- go look up "logos" if you don't understand why your question is funny.

For the people arguing with logos over free:

logos runs a business. He follows the TMS rules, but within the rules will try to maximize the voting scores for IR muds and make his listings as attractive to potential players as possible.

If you really want to have commercial muds flagged as such, then ask Synozeer for a "hobbyist/commercial" flag next to a mud listing instead of having the Nth annual argument over what free means.

Stilton

If you really want to have commercial muds flagged as such, then ask Synozeer for a "hobbyist/commercial" flag next to a mud listing instead of having the Nth annual argument over what free means.

Yup.  However, before I go and make this kind of request, I wanted to hear out all sides, toss some compromise ideas out there, and see what the best approach would be.  Forums are usually good for this, assuming all parties are willing to talk.

This thread has an example of people (myself and others) doing exactly that, after IRE began bribing players to vote for them, among other tactics Threshold characterized (very accurately, in my opinion) as "particularly sleazy" ().  Everyone got a chance to talk, some proposals were floated, and Synozeer eventually stepped in and made a call ().

In my opinion, IRE deliberately mischaracterizes their service.  I offered some ideas for how their website could better clarify what they offer (*), but was rebuffed and told to take legal action via the Federal Trade Commission.

Several posters offered reasonable suggestions, generally centered around IRE calling themselves some variant of "pay-for-perks" instead of "free".  This was met with personal attacks, as well as sarcastic counteroffers like:

the_logos:  

When you're dealing with someone whose attitude is "I don't care if people get insulted by my opinions. I don't care if they get provoked by things I do." (), then I agree that it's the only way to handle the situation.  I also have to agree with Kavir's conclusion that it seems like the_logos is interested in killing as much quality conversation here as possible, by wading in, insulting swaths of the community, and using sixth-grade debate tactics, as Dulan is fond of pointing out.  (And then complaining that there isn't enough quality conversation.)

-Valg

(*): As another poster pointed out, they advertise that pay-for-perks is an incentive in their eyes, since it allows you to allegedly balance your own available-funds vs. free-time budget.  You'd think they'd want to make that clear, if they consider it an advantage.