Just in case anyone's keeping up with Medievia's latest change to force players to vote, here's a direct threat from the owner of the MUD:

[Mon Dec 12 06:10] Vryce(148):: if we dont STAY in the top 5 on that vote list I will shut down medievia

I've been playing Medievia for 6 years, and will never play it again after Vryce and Soleil broke TMS rules, and pushed yet another threat down his players' throats.

Complainers, whiners, moaners, and groaners are always the ones who are most vocal but are not in the majority. I talk to people nearly every day who are pleased and excited about the new and amazing innovations that are going on in medievia almost weekly.  
Serpents, ships, terraforming, and other new features make this game a growing, evolving vibrant place, and despite the few vocal naysayers, it is in fact an wonderful world to be a part of.
But here's the other thing to keep clearly in mind. Change is hard for some people. There are people out there who prefer to know something inside and out, they want no challenge, they want all things predictable. You can't use Gamerevolution to win this game. Med is not that place.
Today on Med will not be the same as tomorrow on Med. Something you try now, mayl be harder or easier tomorrow.
Some people can't handle that. But if you want a challenge, if you really want to feel good about what you've accomplished, Med is the place for you. If you want easy and predictable, I recommend Tetris.
In order to compete with muds that have FAR FAR FEWER players, Medievia must employ the same tactics that they are allowed to use. This is only fair.

Their change is illegal. Read the rules of this website.

If they "have to" resort to cheating to get people to play the game, chances are there's either a problem with their content (unlikely, since the depth of gameplay is amazing), or with their management.

I'd say management has been slowly killing the game for years. Luckily, this will probably give it the shot it needs to put it out of its misery.

As I see it, no rules were broken.  We've just researched what the other top muds do to help get their players to vote and have adopted a similar strategy that the usual #1 MUD (Aardwolf) uses.  If Medievia is at fault, then they are too. (I know, sounds soooo petty...)

Mr. Gameover, I'm sorry you are disappointed by our actions today, but I'm probably about 99% sure that you are not leaving Medievia because of this issue here on TMS.   If you are, then so be it.  However, I urge you to leave Medievia if you don't like it there.  Go find another game that suits your needs better.  After all, games are for entertainment, right?  You SHOULD leave a game that is no longer fun for you.  Since playing a game like a MUD takes a lot of time, that time should be spent somewhere you have fun.  It's always a shame to lose a player, but we don't want to keep players around who don't enjoy their experience.  I wish you the best at your new MUD home and hope that you enjoy it as much as you enjoyed your time on Medievia.  Good Luck finding that game!

I can't say I'm happy about it, but they do have a point in that Aardwolf seems to have the same system and nobody is complaining about them (although I am about to, privately, to Synozeer).

--matt

Aardwolf's reminder is OPTIONAL, which is the key here. Medievia hinders gameplay by breaking people's prompts, and then threatens them if they use a script to turn it off. Aardwolf offers the option of having a reminder, and the ability to easily turn it off.

Well, first, I have no problem with either system. Don't play the MUD if it bothers you that much. Having said that, however, here is what the rules say:

"You cannot display different messages based on whether someone voted or not, or reward a player for voting by not showing messages."

It doesn't distinguish between systems that are opt-out and systems that aren't. You can argue about one being more intrusive, and you'd be correct, but the rules don't take that into account.

I would certainly back a change that allowed for players to opt-in to that kind of prompt notification system, but the rules currently don't permit it as far as I can tell.

--matt

I second Soleil's post. It is obvious that "Gameover" has not been happy in Med for sometime and is now taking his/her parting dig at the game.
This does not negate some basic truths about Medievia....

The Challenge
The Companionship
The Fun
The Evolution
The Variety

Sadly, too many people aren't aware of the wonders of Medievia, by employing the same tactics used by other Muds on TMS Medievia is leveling the playing field with the competition and helping to make more people aware of the possibilities.

Whether he's upset with Medievia or not is immaterial as to whether Medievia is breaking the rules or not. Whether Medievia is a great game or a bad game is irrelevant to the voting rules.

--matt

Now, if only I could have the significant sum of money that I've spent on the game refunded!

Live and learn...

By the way, you're a great mouthpiece for the game, and so able to ignore anything but happily-spun propaganda. Soleil should pay you, if she isn't already.

Now, if only I could have the significant sum of money that I've spent on the game refunded!

Live and learn...

By the way, you're a great mouthpiece for the game, and so able to ignore anything but happily-spun propaganda. Soleil should pay you, if she isn't already.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense Soleil. You know I've defended Medievia in the past, but saying you're going to break a rule because someone else did is crap. If you knew Aardwolf was breaking the rules, why not just shoot an email to to let Adam know? It's worked in the past. Materia Magica got kicked off here after they cheated. A couple other MUDs have too.

I wish you guys would reconsider.
--matt

That's really not what I meant.  I just assumed that since Aardwolf's system has been in place for a long time and that they've been the #1 game for just as long, that what they were doing was totally in agreement with the rules.  If not, why wasn't this brought up ages ago?? That is the major reason why we chose to do the same-ish thing.  I didn't know they were breaking the rules at all.  Maybe just my assumption that everyone was aware of what they were doing was incorrect.  

This brings about this question...
Just exactly how far does Synozeer go to prove that games aren't cheating?   Does a representative of this site EVER log into MUDs to make sure they are following the rules?  If so, why didn't Aardwolf's system come out before?  Why now, when Medievia does it, does it come out as illegal?

I'd imagine that Synozeer depends 100% on MUDs policing each other. Aardwolf has a lot of players, so we've never seen a reason to investigate their high vote counts, but we do investigate, as thoroughly as we can, any sudden jumps in voting or suspiciously high vote-total to total players ratio.

So I mean, the answer to your question is probably just, "Nobody complained." (Until now.)

Incidentally, I'm proposing to Adam that he consider changing the rule to allow for vote reminding systems that allow players to opt-out if they want. That way Aardwolf could just keep their current system (which seems perfectly fine to me as long as the rules permit it) and you could modify yours to allow players to opt-out of the vote-status-on-prompt.

I think that the reason for the rules is that Adam doesn't wish players to be selectively nagged based on whether they've voted or not. Currently the options are then either to nag everybody or not to nag. If the rule change were permitted, there'd be a third option, "Only 'nag' those who are ok with being 'nagged.'"

--matt

You know, I wouldn't even have a problem with the game except for this one paragraph

"Once you vote do a VOTE IVOTED and your prompt will clear until tomorrow. Do not run a script to clear the prompt as the game detects this and marks your history. That is fine but if you ever want our help, or our support in your problems, or to become an avatar or god, you do not want this kind of history."

Sounds like an implied threat to me, and makes me wonder why I'm playing a MUD where the gods can be so callous about the playerbase

If a vote button comes up after a certain period of time in the client, is that alright?  If it doesn't turn off if you vote, that is. Is that legal in the voting rules system?

I just heard from Adam regarding this whole issue. Here is the general gist of his feeling:

Displaying different messages based on whether someone has voted or not is fine IF those people have opted-in to that scheme. So, if it's on by default when you create, or is turned on by default for you, that's illegal (so no opt-out schemes, only opt-in schemes).

So, if Aardwolf's is on by default, Adam says it's illegal, but if people have to opt-in to it then he says it's fine. Medievia's sounds like it is still against his intent though, as it seems like it's forced on players.

He says he'll try to take some time tonight to consider altering the rules to clarify his intent.

--matt

Here, let's discuss further shall we?

There's a saying:

"If everyone else was jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?"

Obviously, Medievia would. But that's not really the point is it.

I'd like to point out that Medievia has made a significant jump on the list by forcing people to vote. Yes, that's "forcing", as in, no choice, or we break your prompt, and also, think about the implied threat:

"We won't support you."

Ok, so for instance, if a player does something illegal by Medievia's rules to another player. Let's say the discipline gods now have to check the records to see if someone's voting for Medievia or not. Let's say here that the victim is not voting, and has subbed or somehow blocked the ugly IVOTE yellow tag so their prompt will work right. That person isn't voting, therefore gets no help? Doesn't that sound like an utter crock? That's like saying "Oh here, go vote and you can do whatever you want." Golly gee whiz! If only the money I've sunk into Medievia for donation equipment would buy me the same privileges!!

But it doesn't. All I have to do now to get away with things is go vote for a game. And I don't have to hand over any of my hard-earned money!

That'll raise revenue won't it? But the above scenario is merely supposition. What's the real deal?

And Jeena, you're not fooling anyone with your name on here. I know who you are, and so does anyone else who's played Medievia. Your condescending "holier-than-thou" attitude can't be mistaken, and you are one of Medievia's gods, so of course you're going to defend the game.

The sad thing is, there are players who haven't been screwed by Medievia yet who will come and defend it too. I can name off the top of my head quite a few bigtime players/donaters who got nailed. No reimbursements, not even a note saying "Hey, sorry about your loss", no nothing. Just a bunch of excuses and no facts.

You all can lie until it flows our your ears. Too bad V has a big mouth, and loves gloating over how "smart" he is over the IMM channel. You all say one thing, and then turn right around and do another.

Wait a second, I think I must have missed something, with both you and Aardwolf.

Voting isn't what is giving different messages. It's whether you typed 'ivoted' or not. That's not against the rules at all as far as I can tell, as it's not basing anything on whether someone's voted or not, just on whether they typed 'ivoted', which doesn't have to have anything to do with voting.

My apologies. I just misunderstood how you and Aardwolf were doing things with the voting prompt.

--matt

To those of us who know better, Soleil's post is utter crap.

Ok, so the new helpfile on Medievia says,

"Once you vote do a VOTE IVOTED and your prompt will clear until tomorrow. Do not run a script to clear the prompt as the game detects this and marks your history. That is fine but if you ever want our help, or our support in your problems, or to become an avatar or god, you do not want this kind of history."

Which seems to be at odds with your bit about how voters won't be treated any differently. And as to asking purged players about breaking the rules, I can think of a handful that were purged due to mistakes Med gods never admitted to.

Mild Mudder- Well, we both think what each other is writing is crap, we agree to disagree?

And Matt- yes we don't link voting to people's ips or anything like that. We give them the prompt to remind them to vote. They can type vote ivote for the prompt to go away, whether they vote or not. We have no way to prove if the person actually went and voted. So, are you now saying that we are NOT doing anything against the rules?

If it makes you feel any better, Medievia cannot tell if you have a script running to do that or not.

They can't tell if you've voted unless you tell them you do, and there's no way for them to verify it. You'll know this has changed if you mouse-over the vote link and see that you're going through a redirector rather than straight to part of the Topmudsites site.

--matt

an except from the imm channel on medievia:

---------------------------------------------------
[Mon Dec 12 17:53] Vryce(148):: it wont be there for long
[Mon Dec 12 17:53] Vryce(148):: now that we are doing what others are doing with the vote prompt and are winning, they wan
t a new rule
[Mon Dec 12 17:53] Vryce(148):: they say they soon wont allow it
[Mon Dec 12 17:54] Vryce(148):: anything they can do so med cant win
[Mon Dec 12 17:54] Vryce(148):: my suggestion is to vote like crazy this week, we called their bluff and it worked
[Mon Dec 12 17:54] Dirocus:: you think its a conspiracy against you v
[Mon Dec 12 17:54] Vryce(148):: I dont think, they say it is
[Mon Dec 12 17:54] Vryce(148):: they even admit it is
[Mon Dec 12 17:55] Vryce(148):: go on the forums and post how much med is better than the other muds if you get a chance

So bottom line, rather than admit he might have been wrong, it's now a conspiracy.

Gets better and better!

Well, I'm not Adam and so am certainly not the official rules interpreter, but the current ones are pretty short and simple as regards this,

"You cannot display different messages based on whether someone voted or not, or reward a player for voting by not showing messages."

You guys aren't doing that (again, my apologies, I misunderstood how you and Aardwolf were doing things). You're displaying different messages based on whether someone has typed 'ivoted' or not, and there's nothing stopping anyone from typing 'ivoted' regardless of whether they've voted.

--matt

No, we were too quick to condemn them. Threatening your players for not voting is kind of a weird thing to do, but it's not against any rules on TMS as they're printed on the website at least.

--matt

I've asked this on the imm channel but you didn't answer, so I'll ask it here... If you HATE Medievia so much, why are you loggin in? Why are you logged in RIGHT NOW, waiting for Vryce's every word on the imm channel? Do you like the drama? Do you think all this cutting and pasting is making Medievia look bad? As I just said on imm, it's all free publicity, bring it on!

I must say, this is a vey interesting thread. I've been playing Med for 5 years, off and on...have I agreed with all changes that have been made? No. Is this particular change my favorite? No. Am I going to condemn the game for it? No.

Looking through all of this, what has been implemented on Med is not much different than what another game that has consistently been at the top has done. And yet we get a large finger of blame pointed squarely at us, get accused of cheating, and threatening the players. Why is this? Medievia is a damn good game. I've never seen a MUD survive so long as Med has, nor have I seen a game evolve in the manner that it has. Hands-down, it is the most complex MUD that I, and anyone I have ever spoken to, has played. For it all to work, and to have the playerbase that we have, we MUST be doing something right...and there wouldn't be such cries of outrage about this if someone, somewhere, didn't recognize this. So far as the post from the IMM channel in this forum, I did not see it, and cannot say whether or not it happened, but anyone who knows Med and it's staff, many tongue-in-cheek things are said, by Gods, Heroes, and Lowbies alike. It's the nature of the game. As far as the prompt flag goes? I haven't cleared it, I subbed it. And reading the helpfile as I have several times today, it only states any less-than-favorable treatment toward those who use the in-game command to clear it, when they haven't...because doing so is LYING...and lying GENERALLY, among the sane populace, reaps no rewards. The alternative, if you don't want to vote, and don't want to see it: /sub {<Help IVOTE>} {:} in Mudmaster...if you use zMUD I can't help you, but it CERTAINLY can't be hard to figure out. This system, therefore, is essentially opt-outable. Enough said.

Too quick to condemn them? I think not. I've been through too many things with them, too many questionable "scenarios" for it to be a mistake.

The problem is, they keep getting away with it. And obviously, they're going to continue getting away with it.

If you had logged on and seen a message just like the one that's been posted all over the forums today, with no other explanation, what would you think? The same things all of us did. And you'd be right. This isn't the first time V's threatened us.

And now Medievia has jumped up high from a lower position. A very significant jump I might say. Because people believe the same things we do. Before, when they would do a global echo to vote, they didn't get nearly as many as they are right now. All they got were a bunch of complaints over IMM about the spammy echoes and how no one wanted to vote.

Medievia cheated. They used a threat and it got results. Nice to know TMC supports such muds.

But wait, how did they cheat? You may not like what they've done. You may consider it slimy or mean or manipulative, but which rule did they violate? I mistakenly thought they were sending different messages based on whether or not you've voted, but they're not: They're sending different messages based on whether or not you type the 'ivoted' command.

So I mean, you may not like it, but which rule is that breaking?

--matt
P.S. It's also not worth considering the jump a first day or even first week method of vote motivation gets. Players react strongly to new/different things, but once Medievia's players are used to this new (to them) system, their behavior is likely to level off.

Whether its against the rules or not, and whether they are going to treat mudders differently or not, it IS quite base to think that Medievia is threatening its players.

If you log onto Aardwolf you will NOT know to vote or that Aard wants you to vote until *players* push the idea. You won't know about the ivoted mechanism till someone tells you, and unlike Medievia its not put into your prompt automatically. You don't have to type anything, it won't remind you ever until you *opt-in*.

When someone spams you, you don't opt-out by deleting the message. Opting-out means not getting any more messages at all. You can't do this on medievia.

The immortals of medievia have also owned up to the threatening. It doesn't matter that it might or might not be inforced, players see the threat and they will feel compelled to go vote.

I read the spirit of the rules to be, players should vote because they want to vote. They should NOT vote because of coersion or a belief that they will be punished in some way. This is exactly whats happening with some voters on Medieva and why its vote count is inflating rapidly.

It is, bottom line, incredibly scummy to threaten one's playerbase. Put up with it or not, if you love the mud so much, but within this forum and this website, it should be something we lambast.

Aardwolf isn't breaking the rules because its a mechanism that is used *voluntarily* by the player and is not presented whether you voted or not, its presented whether you chose to be reminded to vote or not. Thats an incredible difference from presented automatically without your consent and packaged with a threat (however empty). A threat doesn't have to be enforced to be effective, it merely has to be believed.

I feel that Medieva should either change their system to be like aard's where you opt-in to be reminded and by removing the threat and apologizing to its player base, OR being removed from the vote list for non-compliance with the rules.

Medieva is obviously breaking the rules by coercing its playerbase through threats and automatic reminding.

N

Nothing I have seen indicates that there WILL be action taken against players that do not vote. I've watched the conversation on the Immortal channel. The information given in help states this:

Once you vote do a VOTE IVOTED and your prompt will clear until tomorrow. Do not run a script to clear the prompt as the game detects this and marks your history. That is fine but if you ever want our help, or our support in your problems, or to become an avatar or god, you do not want this kind of history.

If you can read plain English, and have the capacity to not make rash assumptions, this states that IF YOU RUN A SCRIPT TO CLEAR THE PROMPT, AND SAY YOU HAVE VOTED, WITHOUT ACTUALLY VOTING, IT WILL BE FROWNED UPON. This is akin to LYING, as I have said. Those of you with children, do you not take action against your kids if they lie to you? If they lie to you, do you give them what they want next time they ask for something of you? NO! I'm not even a parent, and that makes perfect sense to me.

As far as the rules of the site, whether a system is opt-in only, mandatory, or non-existent, should not matter. The game, in any way shape or form, AND THIS APPLIES TO ANY GAME, NOT JUST AARDWOLF OR MED, the game is canvassing its own playerbase for votes. If someone feels a game is worth voting for, they should be able to do it of their own accord, they should not need the game to remind them at any point. But if it is to be allowed in one shape or form, all other shapes or forms are essentially the same--the game is canvassing its own playerbase.

Well, I'm not going to disagree there. I don't know what would possess an admin, especially of a commercial MUD, to threaten players for not voting, but being a jerk isn't against TMS rules either.

--matt

It's still a threat. I don't think it's right for a mud to demand that it's players vote for it, or else they might not get the help they need later on.

no, all other forms are not the same.

one form threatens and is not optin or optout, but mandatory 'deletion' of reminder message.

One forces you to 'lie' to avoid spammy messages or to choose not to vote. (med)

One is opt-in, and you can never see it again anytime you elect. (aard)

One treats you like a child (med)

One treats you like an adult that can make his or her own decision (aard).

One threatens its playerbase (med).

One canvasses its playerbase through good will and polite requests (aard).


Med's owner started a topic called "Vote medieva! or else..." and thats not scummy to you? You don't see aard's owner Lasher coming on here to pull such peurile hijinks.

N

Again, this is only if they LIE about it. I'm not in a position that makes the determination on how exactly things will be upheld, but, so far as I can determine, if you don't vote, and never claim to have voted, you've got a clean slate. Same as if you vote, and say you did. If you don't vote, and pop in the command, you've lied to the Gods.

I'm tempted to log on to Medievia, just to see what all the positive hype is. I know enough about the negative to never, ever play there for an extended period of time for any purpose but to observe, but so many naive natives have heralded it to be the most exemplary mud there is that my curiousity has, sadly, been piqued.

From what I've read about it, concerning the features and the like, it doesn't seem to be that special. Perhaps I'm mistaken and I'll end up loving Medievia. Far more likely I'll be struck by space debris before I log on and never get the chance. Pity me!

Oh, and, uh, something to make this even slightly on topic:

Bad Medievia, bad. No. Stop it. >:|

This quote seems a bit harsh to me, although, how is Vryce able to get the IPs of people posting on a public forum?

Naubol...whether or not the tag exists, it does not have to be seen. On ALL of my players, I see a little yellow :. Very unobtrusive, and VERY simple to do. It is not forced down anyone's throat, a simple line of command that can be copied and pasted FROM THIS FORUM will make it disappear, or blend in as you choose. No one is forced to lie. Forcing someone to lie is as dishonest as lying oneself. As far as treating anyone like a child? No, I see a request to vote for the MUD, which, if any playerbase-canvassing is to be allowed, is perfectly A-OK. And again with the threats, I'm done beating a dead horse on that topic. If you cannot READ, then I'm sorry.

BTW, Vryce didn't start that topic, it was merely a help file cut and pasted by one of our oh-so-loyal players.

You can hardly expect the player of a mud run by dishonest thieves possessed of decidedly substandard integrity to have any of their own, Soleil. It shouldn't be any surprise that some of the more vocal members of the Anti-Mercthievia Coalition are people who've played on it.

Another thing I like even less than what the mud has done is people creating accounts just to come on and trash the mud. Don't do that, people, it's not honest, and it's not right.

Matt, I've always supported you and your muds, I'm very disappointed you didn't just email and ASK me before posting several notes about Aardwolf "cheating".

Firstly, the Aardwolf command is a reminder, a 12 hour timer, nothing more nothing less. It is not tracked and there is no in-game consequence implied or otherwise to voting or not voting. Secondly, and most importantly, I also asked Adam before adding it and was told it was ok as long as it was simply that, a timer.

I guess you could type 'ivoted' and not vote, but there would be absolutely no point to it unless you believed for some reason it really did affect your character. If someone has that little trust in what is published by the game's admin I would have to wonder why they'd play the mud in the first place.

What I'm struggling to understand now is how you don't see Medieva's implied threat as breaking the rules. Isn't an implied threat for not voting basically an in-game incentive to vote?!