After being a member of these boards for quite few months now, mainly reading for RP ideas, I have to ask why alot of the free muds are so angry when it comes to P2P games. I understand many of you have woderful communites/games and you would like to recruit new members to come and join you. As a player of a P2P game I dont come here to try and wrangle people for money, but instead share my great experiences I have had in my game. Yes the game I play cost money unfortunately, but after playing quite a few games over the years I would quickly pay it becuase its the game that suits me best. It has everything that I care for. Maybe I just misunderstand the purpose of this board, but for me I thought it was a place to introduce and discuss the games we all know and love. All well, those wer my thoughts take them as you will.

Player of an evil P2P mud
Jerry

I guess I just had a misconception of the purpose of this board then.  When I discovered it I thought it to be an open forum for MUDs in general.  A place to see different games available, learn some basics, give designers a place to change it up and share thoughts and experiences.  Instead, there seems to be more of Im better than you or I can believe your Mud does that.....

In my opinion, people are not idiots.  If they dont want to pay for a game, they wont.  At least in the case of my game its no big secret that its P2P.  I wouldnt care how it got signfied that its P2P.  If somebody wants to play a free game, I dont think it makes a difference if BIG (which my game is not all that big) games are listed as #1 because they wont play them and continue down the list to the games that got bumped down a few notches.  As for the games that are listed  in 81-100 range, if they truly care to utilize the ranking system to stay on the boards for advertizing reasons it only takes 2 daily voters to achieve a <50 ranking.

On a side note, this battle seems to heat up so much sometimes I believe many of those in the arguments are causing more damage to their ability to recruit new players through their words of hate that they lose to being a rank below a P2P game.

In short, I believe players will just as quickly join a free game with our without P2Ps being ranked among them if that is what they are looking for.  If paying for a game doesnt matter to a player then the the ranking system wouldnt hinge on this matter anyway.

I will not post again on this topic, but I will read your thoughts and concerns.  I just wanted what others though and to give my own opinion without trying to start a big argument on the whole thing.  This a great tool for Mud players for many reasons other than the ranking system.

And I rest my conversation on this topic.

A player,
Jerry

And Wow I forgot about that cool lil pic I have for my Icon. I need to snag it and take it to the IC boards of my game. Seeing I play a ruby dragon.

The Ruby,
Rawcliffe

Speaking as a game that uses a shareware method of payment, I can add a bit of insight here. I should mention, however, that you cannot even create a character on Threshold without having the system of payment explained in great detail.

You have to keep in mind that anyone charging money in ANY WAY on the internet, be it a game, website, or even software, is still fighting an uphill battle against the huge amount of people who think everything on the internet should be free. This is very unfair to people who invest enormous amounts of money and professional levels of time and committment (not hobby levels) to the product or service they are making available.

On usenet this week, in one of the general RPG discussion groups, there was even a huge debate as to whether or not it was ridiculous and absurd that MMORPGs charge a monthly fee. There are still A LOT of people who do not even understand that server farms, tons of bandwidth, advertising, and staff to produce new content and provide customer service cost a great deal of money.

So while you make some good points, I think you should also keep the above in mind.

I am sure you would not make such tongue-in-cheek statements if the suggestion was that every now and then your boss/employer/clients/etc. simply not pay you.

I have no problem with pay muds, as long as they mention they're pay muds somewhere on the page.

They're easy to bypass by having a look at their webpage anyhow.

That's nice. Is it mentioned in your listing here on TMS? What about your MUD's info link? Didn't think so. You are as bad as the rest of them. You lure them in enough to get them in the doors, when more than likely many of the people lured in would bypass you outright.

You POOR babies. Rest your head on momma's shoulder. In case it's not obvious, you have no sympathy from me. YOU decided to make a product on the net. If it's hard work, that's YOUR problem. No one else's. Sorry, but how many of us have run free games. No charges what so ever... even voluntary ones? You expect to make money. We don't. In general, we can't afford to pay for advertising. If you run a pay MUD and can't afford to fork out a little for advertising, you're in the wrong business... that or you have no confidence in your product. So, instead you come out and steal advertising from free MUDs who need it. Right. You deserve SO much pity. Poor you.

Yes. We should go out and pay $60 for the software to run the game, then pay $10 more per month to play it. Yeah. That's reasonable. Please, note the pouring sarcasm. At least in this respect P2P MUDs are better than games like Everquest, as the ability to log into them is free. I also don't define any MUDs as MMORPGs as I doubt any MUD has the type of playerbase that something like Everquest has. But, this is a fairly useless point. Because advertising... well, you're getting that for free off of your TMS ranking. *smirks* Many of these P2P games, from what I've heard, also run on a volunteer staff. So, no cost there, either... if you pay your staff, good for you.

Your example is flawed. We're talking company to client relations, not company to employee relations. Furthermore, to make your example more accurate it should be "I am sure you would not make such tongue-in-cheek statements if the suggestion was that every now and then you decided your boss/employer/clients/etc. didn't have to pay you." Which, btw... I have on occasion overlooked costs owed to me by clients. Next, most places try to downplay the cost as a minimal cost... if the cost is so minimal, you shouldn't worry about whether or not you get paid.

Alright guys ... I'm generally a nice gal, but I'm having a teeny bit of problem with being slapped in the face repeatedly.

Let me clarify a couple of things for you again.

The pay games, by and large serve more users than all the other MUDs in the top 20 put together. Yet we are sending our users HERE to this site to vote, where they are exposed to countless FREE opportunities for them to play.

I have no doubt that we double (or more) the traffic that would come here if this site were reserved for free muds only.

We're helping you FAR more than we are harming you.

Second, not all commercial MUDs have the same policies. Some of us our PROUD of the fact that we are a commercial success, and have no problem being explicit that our games are pay to play.

Making us out to all be the same, is about as fair as me thinking that everyone on this board is an immature jerk, because a couple people here don't know how to communicate in a constructive manner.

What we SHOULD be doing here is forming a community of people who would like to improve the overall state of text-based games ... reaching out to those who currently can't see past the graphical games enough to recognize that a text-game is a far greater quality of experience ... and that the brain is the most powerful 3D engine out there.

Frankly, I was highly disappointed when I came to these boards months ago. When I think of all the things we could achieve together, it makes me sad to realize that they will never happen.

Melissa
Producer, GemStone III (who probably shouldn't be posting this.)

Melissa, what grabbed my attention in your post was the hope that we might be able to form some sort of community support to further the success of text-based games. As a father of 2 boys, I do everything that I can to encourage reading. The fact that most kids today have the attention span of a gnat is understated. I think free MUDs get the attention of the kids just because they are kids and have no funds to upgrade to the p2p gaming. Free MUDs provide an entry level for the younger MUDders, where p2p MUDs create the commercial viability that is required on the 'net for anything to continue for any duration of time. I believe you are correct that most p2p MUDs bring more viewers here with the opportunity to check out free MUDs than any other source, but I still get a creepy feeling with some of these MUDs who use less-than-ethical practices to increase their profit margin a small bit. It appears to me that the more successful a p2p MUD is, the more ethical their advertising and payment practices.

Melissa, I think you should not give up the hope of a MUD community that will band together in the hope to introduce today's youth to text-based gaming. It will happen. The reason is that it does not matter if a MUD is p2p or free, there will always be those who use shortcuts to find their own version of success, just as there is in real life, but there is always those who will put a cause before profit, and I know there are at least a few left out there.

While there is no doubt more traffic comes here because of your MUD, there is simply no evidence that it helps any free mud at all.  

If what people are saying doesn't apply to you then why are you complaining about it?

If you can recognize that not everyone is an "immature jerk," why can't you recognize that not everyone makes you all out to be the same?

I thought we were a community already.  However, I have been informed by p2p adminstrators that this is merely a banner exchange.

And what has prevented you from starting threads that discuss these issues?  Maybe I don't pay as much attention to TMS as I used to, but I can't recall any p2p adminstrator bringing up a such a thread.

I, too, agree that you shouldn't be posting this hypocrital trite.

Melissa the people you send to these boards are not averse to playing a P2P MUD. Many of them work on a false belief that just because a MUD is a P2P that it MUST be better. I have spoken to a number of people who have stated that since the P2P MUDs took to listing here, the free MUDs have noticed a decline in incoming players. Many of the people who play free MUDs are, however, not prescribed to the bias that just because a MUD is free it must be better. I won't debate whether free or pay is better, as that's just looking to get a flamewar started... I'm merely pointing out the false beliefs many seem to hold.

Now, no one has said P2P MUDs shouldn't list here. If I gave you that impression, I apologize. To be honest, I don't like P2P MUDs advertising using the ranking list, because it takes away one of the few free advertising venues that free MUDs have available to them, however I can tolerate P2P MUDs being on it. What I do NOT want to tolerate is the asinine attempts to grab a few more players by not being upfront and honest about costs.

If you don't want people to repeatedly 'slap you in the face.' You should be upfront (on your ranking list entry) about your MUD being a P2P. But, you don't do that. You, however, do have it listed in your information listing which I must admit is a good bit more than some of the others have done, so my hat's off to you on that point.

So, to recap... P2P not necessarily bad. P2P advertising on one of few free advertising venues around not nice but, not really bad. P2P advertising using underhanded practices on said free venues reason for free MUD supporters to be angry. Hope that helps.

I don't think it's "stealing" advertising when a game that can afford a banner ad chooses to list their mud in the ranking. How does the ability to pay for something in any way constitute theft when a free alternative is chosen? I don't think it's stealing any more than a free mud listing themselves in a P2P mud's place is stealing.

Yeah, when I think "stealing" I immediately think baseball... =P

So we understand that the main issue you're concerned with is that P2P muds occupy advertising spaces. But I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. The second statement of my reply to your post is the question, "How does the ability to pay for something in any way constitute theft when a free alternative is chosen?" I want to know why the ability to pay for something matters in this occupation of the list. Obviously it is important; you did say it was the main issue.

I already covered that. But, to restate it:

Most people who run free MUDs can not AFFORD to pay for advertising, since they already pay for their net connection, most pay for hosting, as well. They do not expect a return from their efforts to provide a free entertainment to people. By taking spots in one of the few free advertising venues provided for MUDding, you are essentially stealing that space from them.

You may not see anything wrong with something that equates to stealing bread from the hungry. I, however, do.

This is the logic you use to take issue with P2P muds here:
1) They run a P2P mud and,
2) They can afford to pay for advertising and,
3) They occupy a slot in the list therefore,
You take issue with their listing.

However, if I change but one portion of the equation:
1) I run a free mud and,
2) I can AFFORD to pay advertising and,
3) I occupied a slot in the list therefore,
Do you take issue with my listing?

If you would take issue with my listing, then your standards aren't practically applicable: We wouldn't be able to differentiate between those who can really afford to purchase advertisements and those who are genuinely strapped for cash.

If you would not take issue with my listing, then this point is irrelevant and your main issue is thus unjustified -- unless you provide some more explanation. In this case, we would want to know what attribute of P2P muds justifies the thing you take issue with.

Why do you believe that free muds are somehow entitled to free advertising?

What makes this an issue of NEED? The name of this web site is Top Mud Sites. Read those words carefully. It is not "Most Needy Mud Sites."



First, I guess I've already won this argument since you have to resort to blatant, ad hominem insults.

If I'm so dumb, how come I'm so successful? Seriously, calling someone "dumb" as the meat of your argument is really a terrible tactic of debate.

Second, You demonstrate again your lack of understanding of the gaming industry.

They charge an up front cost for the software in order to recoup development costs. MMORPGs these days have development costs upwards of $10 million. Furthermore, they charge up front to prevent people from getting $10 throwaway accounts to cause trouble.

Honestly, you need to obtain a BASIC understanding of the industry before you try to make suggestions for how they should do business. Furthermore, considering how incredibly successful of a market the MMORPG market is, it would appear they know what they are doing.



For all of them? You work for free? Many businesses give away services on occasion for certain reasons (ours included). That is not the same as being expected to work for free.



Widely free? The number of people playing *PAY* online RPGs is TEN to ONE HUNDRED times larger than those playing free games.

The field is widely PAY. The number of people playing the free games is actually quite small by comparison.

Please note it was *YOU* who made a comparative statement by saying the area of online RPGs was "widely free." Since you raised the point, I had to counter it.

So people who expect a widely PAY "entertainment field" to switch to being free is the same thing as expecting people to work for free to entertain you.



Who asked anyone to bow down to your "P2P God"?

You are the one saying Top Mud Sites should be some kind of communist environment where P2P muds pay the costs of operating the sites and then "free muds" get all traffic sent to their games. That is absurd.

Again, if you took the time to educate yourself you would see that muds ALL OVER THE LISTS get a lot of people trying out their games from this list. Both myself and my wife have tried games off this list from all over the rankings in search of a game for *US* to play. It is obvious that everyone on the list benefits. Proposing that P2P games shouldn't be allowed to benefit when they are the ones who PAY MONEY to keep the site running is absurd.

It is just another example of you expecting Person A to pay for something that benefits Person B.

Uh. The simutronics games are obvious pay to play simply by their tag lines. Threshold isn't. Is it too hard to say "free trial" on your tag line? Others have done it, and they're doing very well.

Melissa, this is the answer to your problem about it being a community. He's out to benefit only himself, and by and large many of the other P2P MUD operators behave similarly. Can't have a community when so many of them are vultures, like Threshold, willing to pick off the weakest of the pack in an effort to get a step ahead.

Actually, I was making an observance. If I were attempting to insult you, I'd likely be banned from the boards as soon as Synozeer caught sight of my posts. I generally keep my temper in check, though. Sorry to disappoint you.

Let's see... underhanded business practice, willingness to step on those below you to gain any advantage you can... yeah. You have the perfect corporate appearance. You behave like slime, and are proud to do so. Your intelligence has little to do with it.

Good for them... what, though, does them charging the monthly fee in advance have to do with anything? I know I didn't mention it. Furthemore, I understand that there are costs quite well. But, in all honesty I really don't care. I am the general public, remember? To me, and many people I know, paying for a software then paying for the right to use that software online is a waste of money. If they provide a self-hosting capability within the game, so that you don't have to pay to play online, then I would understand. They very well may do that. I don't know. I've never played the game, and I don't plan on playing it.

I need no such thing. I can go out and make any suggestions I like. You may not like them, but you're one of the soulless minions that is corporate evil. #### DARKSEID TO ####! Sorry, inside joke.

Just to clarify to you... success is not always intentional. It can often come as a nice side effect or out of sheer dumb luck (anti-biotics, anyone?). So, your belief that only intelligence and good planning can result in success... well, it's simply not true. Occasionally some people really are just in the right place... or they're slimeballs willing to kick their grandmother down the stairs. Your underhanded attempts to hide from people that your game is free until they actually go to the trouble of logging in fits into the latter category in my opinion.

If you really want to know, a few of my clients are MUD related. I have done the work for them for free, continuously. So, we've established that i have worked for some people entirely for free (and I still do).

However, I find your habit of twisting statements to be somewhat annoying. Nowhere did I say anyone should be expected to work for free. I said if they play off the cost as 'just a piddly' amount they should be expected to work for free. The costs for what I do are not piddly, and I make it clear up front that it can be expensive. I don't know many businesses who tell their clients in advance "this can be hard on your pockets." So, if you were trying to test my moral fortitude about what I was saying... well, you didn't do a very good job of it.

First of all, I will point out that the number of free MUDs as far as I know greatly outnumbers the number of pay MUDs. Now, I will address your statement. You already have an extremely large amount of people playing P2P games, based on your statement. So, why is it that you need to take a listing from a free MUD, again? Oh yeah, I forgot. You're successful because you're willing to do what it takes. Good job. Can't wait to see which option you choose when someone gives you the option to murder a puppy in cold blood for a hundred thousand dollars. I get the feeling poor little Rover will have a short lifespan, though I could be wrong.

[

Yet you still feel the need to take those few players 'we' have available. Now, as I have previously stated... I do not particularly like P2P MUDs advertising using the ranking listing, but I can tolerate it. What I dislike is the P2P MUDs who hide or are not clear about they fact that they do take payments. If you find it so necessary to not make it clear on your listing here that you take payments, one must wonder why exactly that is. The most obvious conclusion is that you know without a doubt that you will lose incoming traffic. So you willingly choose to be deceitful about it.

It is widely free. We're talking options of places to play. Not players. There IS a difference here. Though, I guess I shouldn't expect someone who is self-proclaimedly successful to care about the distinction between a human and a game..

You just called everyone who does not want to play a P2P MUD, even those of use who run MUDs, the equivalent of a software pirate.

The personal PC could be considered a 'widely pay' field. So, I guess in your eyes the free-software movement is evil. Do you support Palladium, the TCPA, and the Fritz Chip, too? Are you a backer of the RIAA? Nevermind, don't answer that. I think I already know the answer.

It's not my God. You and your belief that anyone who does not like the P2P is a software pirate accounts for that statement.

No. You pay for advertising, you get advertising. You make note you're a P2P MUD, that you take payments in your ranking listing and the info page for your MUD, you're listed if you don't list it in your ranking list and the info listing, you get banned outright permanently (after a warning, maybe). That's what I would propose. If it's absurd to expect people to be upfront and honest about costs, then I suppose I'm just being absurd.

I'm sorry. Where exactly did I say that if you pay for advertising that you shouldn't get it? Please, point that out to me. I said you shouldn't take up space on the ranking listing, and that is only if you do not list in your info and ranking entry that you're a P2P MUD.

You really are this out of it, aren't you? At first I thought it was an act to bait me... but if it's an act, and you've been setting traps, you really have managed to fool me. But, I get the feeling it's not.

I'm done with this. You've made inane arguments, insulted the MUD community almost as a whole, attacked beliefs you assumed I had with no backing what-so-ever, and you still expect yourself to be taken seriously. That simply proves to me that you're far beyond the bounds of reality that most of us have to live in on a daily basis. Enjoy your dream world where everyone is rich and tosses money at you like it's on fire. The rest of us will be living in the real world... feel free to join us sometime.

Edit: I got so tired of responding to Threshold's drivel that I forgot about the bulk of his last statements.

The only difference of qualification between P2P muds and free muds that I see here is that free muds are 1) losing advertising space due to P2P occupation and, 2) P2P muds are getting more money for free.

If there are is one remaining stall at a marketplace and I wish to sell my goods at this stall, and another person wants to give his goods away at this same stall, why does the fact that the person who wants to sell his goods change the morality of his occupying that stall? Likewise, why does the fact that a mud is P2P change the morality of their occupying a space?

If it's really because "they're getting more money", we'd have to write this argument off as ridiculous. Because there are countless situations in which people would be considered immoral in your eyes: If any business wanted to STAY moral with these qualifications, they would have to give up any limited resource as soon as someone who wants to give their services away for free competed for those resources. Needless to say, the effects of your justification would be disastrous.

Ok, going to throw my two coppers into this mess, and yeah, I'm sure someone on one side or the other (or both) will flame me.

I run a free mud, have for years, and even without the code licensing restrictions, I would't charge people to play regardless.  I don't run a mud to make money, it's sort of against my whole creative process (and my staff's).

For those who do run P2P muds, honestly, more power to you.  If you can make a living making games, and have a product people will pay for, once again, more power to you.

What I do have issue with is seeing the rapid decline of the "state of affairs" of TMS as a whole, which may or may not be attributed or affected by the entrance of large P2P muds on the lists.  When certain games came on the boards, we were literally OVER-RUN with people posting drivel, putting down any system that wasn't their precious one they've played forever, and generally ignoring that any sort of community was here in the first place, TMS was seen only as a way to get more exposure for their system.  Legal, sure.  Cheesy and annoying, sure.

What I also take issue with honestly, is the fact that people assume that simply because a game is paid for that it is better, or that an admin is full-time and that is their "job" that they are better, or whatever.  Deem me a "hobbyist" if you wish, but on average, I put in 30-40 hours, or more a week on various things for my game.  Not 5, not 10, 30-40.  Being that I am at my "real job" right now, and typing on here, I'd say that I put in more "real time" into my "hobby" than my "real job" at times (don't tell my boss).

As for the whole advertising thing, I can't honestly chime in about that, because we DO pay for advertising here, and have been the sponsor of TMS for quite some time now, and we shell out $100 a month to do so, with a portion coming from player and staff donations, but the majority of it coming from my pocket.  Do we get more players since we put in the ads, sure we do.  Have we gotten a few players from P2P muds, sure we have.  Have we lost more players to P2P muds than we've gained, who knows, I doubt it.

Enough of my rambling ranting, I'm just tired of being looked at as a second-class citizen from a third-world country simply because I'm a "hobbyist" and *gasp* run a mud in my spare time, with a *gasp* completely volunteer staff, and *gasp* give our service completely away for free...


Terl

Perhaps you can highlight the important parts, then? What I see is an agenda propped up by some poorly thought-out arguments. I simply want to find the logical extrapolation of your claims. I do this so that everybody can easily see where the logic you use takes you.

I don't think I have to quote the post where I pointed out this fallacy. Remember, even free mud administrators can pay for advertising. Furthermore, you're using flawed circular logic to back up your points: You state that P2P muds are occupying an advertisement slot; I ask why it matters that they're P2P muds occupying an advertisement slot, as opposed to a free mud; and you reply that this is because they're occupying an advertisement slot that a free mud could use! You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to convince anybody. In particular, we need to know what attributes of P2P muds make it immoral.

Can the person who wants to give his goods away go a block down the street, pay a moderate fee, and give them away? This is the second time I've had to point out this fallacy.

I love this quote =).

All those points that I've shown were irrelevant and that you didn't refute? =)

So what if the free MUD administrator is a wealthy executive? This is the third time this fallacy has reared its ugly head.

Playing off the cost as 'just a piddly' amount is done from the customer's perspective, not producer's perspective. If I sell a unit of good X for $0.10 a piece, and I sell 10,000 units of X, I receive $1,000. For the individual customer buying a unit of good X, the cost is "just a piddly amount". But for the producer whose income depends on the sale of mass quantities of these goods, this is most certainly not negligable, and it is silly for them to not be concerned with its pricing. Even changes in a fraction of a cent per individual customer can mean thousands of dollars of change for the producer.

Or would you rather the maker of such mundane inexpensive items as toothbrushes simply forgo their income?

*sigh* So far, no one but you and Threshold seems to be having a problem with understanding it. I will explain it once more since you have such a hard time grasping the concept. Pay MUD steal advertising space from Free MUD. Pay MUD can afford to rent advertising space instead. Pay MUD does not make clear that it is Pay MUD. Free MUD loses one of few free avertising spots to Pay MUD that can afford to pay for advertising instead.

Let's recap once more. P2P kicks the free MUD off of one of the few free advertising venues available (this seems to be where you get lost... there are not very many places that people can get prominent advertising for their MUD for free ... this is a boon to free MUD admin... it's a perk to a P2P admin, but as has been previously admitted by Threshold, they do not NEED the space here), P2P can afford to pay for advertising elsewhere, or even on this site.

If that still doesn't make sense to you... well, I don't really give a ####, but there is nothing more I can say to get the point across to you.

This was covered not only in my statements but in the stealing bread from the hungry analogy. If it's not yet clear to you, then it likely never will be and we're pointlessly dragging this thread out.

I also made it clear, I will not attempt to take into account personal finances. That has no relevance to the MUDs as entities. Free MUDs do not have a guaranteed source of income... they might get a donation here and there, but in general it will be nothing near the type of income a P2P MUD would have.

So, if you're fixated on this personal income issue, you might as well give up now... it has no relevance here, and continually bringing it up serves no real purpose.

If it's too hard for you to understand the clear and outright statement that I will NOT take into account personal finances, you have my sympathies.

This will be the third time I've had to point out I will not take into account personal finances, thus your point here is null and void.

And not only have you ignored rather clear statements I've made, used bad logic (the point wasn't circular no matter how much you may wish for it to be), but now you're twisting what I say. Bravo. You've stooped to the level of troll.

This is your opinion, and you are entitlte do it.

This is the fourth time I've had to state I will not take into account personal finances.

I felt a few of the things you stated needed to be addressed, however by and large I'm done with this thread. I may read it with amusement, however I doubt I will be posting to it any further.

But you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty refuting it. Maybe it's because you say the same thing over and over again, and ignore what I've said?

You don't seem to understand that personal finances are tightly coupled with your argument: You are saying that P2P muds shouldn't occupy a spot in the list because they can afford to buy an advertisement. I am saying that this point is impractical to apply because some free mud administrators can also afford buy an advertisement. You said yourself that you don't want to take into account personal finances, which demonstrates the impracticality of your logic. This is a central premise of your argument on the immorality of the issue, and without it your conclusion completely falls apart.

Furthermore, your argument makes complete sense to me, and I understand it fully. But remember way back there on the second page, where I requested that you give an attribute of P2P muds that decided the immorality of the issue? Your only attempt at giving one -- that they can afford an advertisement -- is what I have shown to be completely impractical to apply, and you've puzzingly decided to ignore it?

I don't see how you can honestly say that it has no relevance here, given the evidence I've laid out for you.

One point does not a circle make, Orion. Circular logic occurs when one point is used to 'prove' another point, and then that point is then used to 'prove' the point that was used to prove it. Repeating the same thing in response to all of my questions is most certainly circular; it shows that you take your argument as a given.

Have a little maturity, will you? We're all adults here.

((( This was originally an actual point-by-point response. A few minutes later, I decided to go back and erase everything because continuing to argue each point seems to just fan the flames. I imagine that is of neither benefit nor interest to the general readership here. I left my statements that are 2 posts below because I felt it was important to point out OE's 100% false accusations regarding Threshold's TMS listing. Since I cannot delete this post, editing it out is the best I can do.)))

First, the statements that I and Threshold are such horrible, evil things:

... and I probably missed a few.


And then, the most important FOUR quotes:

I wanted to quote these seperately as they are GLARING examples of how Orion Elder blathers on without making even the tiniest effort to EDUCATE himself about the topic.

FOUR times over the last few days Orion Elder accused me of not listing Threshold as a pay mud. He could *EASILY* have looked up our link. It isn't hard, we're right there on the front page.

Here is the link to Threshold's listing on TMS:



Please note that in the FEATURES section, it clearly says: Pay-per-play

Our listing has ALWAYS said that.

Seriously OE, before you spew insults at people you should at least spend a few seconds researching your accusations.

Eh. I've been enjoying this Unifex vs. OE argument, Threshold, but if you want to jump in, I get to jump in too. And, unlike with the previous subject, you won't be able to use the constant emotional appeals as well as irrelevant points to your audience, because this subject has none.

-D

*rubs his temples*

Wasn't this beat to death once before?

- The annoyance previously known as TG_Nek

Believe it or not, to some of us this is new material. Perhaps you could enlighten us about the conclusions of the beating, or give an informative link?

It was a few months back.  I spent an hour or so last night trying to find the exact thread.  Granted, I'm not as "fly through the forums to find a lost thread capable" as some folk.  It started when I posted a poll that was running alongside the "P2P are evil" thread that was developing asking folks how they would prefer P2P mud's be listed on the ranking page (not the Features page).  Dulan made a crack/observation about many of the options weren't relevant or somesuch, focusing on 'leave the place to the cockroaches' joke option.   If someone remembers the thread and has better luck finding it, more power to 'em.

I think how it progressed was OE and I going round-robin for a few pages with some occassional shots being tossed in by Dulan and others.  How it concluded I can't say I recall, as the last two weeks of my finals interrupted my following of the debate.  I think I also felt I was arguing with a brick wall and forced myself to stop.

In my mind I think it concluded for me in deciding that everyone has different opinions, some people can't look past their own for the betterment of design purposes, and that I should probably focus my time on my schoolwork.  What probably happened was that I got a few flames after my last post and then it died.  

Personally, I don't play a P2P Mud.  But I'm not a hater and don't see any reason why they should be made to post it on the rankings page if they already identify themselves as such in Features.  It takes an extra few seconds to just check the Features page to find out more about the mud - or their web site.  Now looking beyond my OWN opinion if you are going to make an $ icon on the rankings page for P2P muds, for DESIGN PURPOSES why not have icons depicting several other preferences players might have (RP/PK ratio, code base, genre type).  I know I'd be upset  if I tried a listing that said it was heavy rp oriented in its ranking description only to find out it was a "rp to justify pk" mud.  It would probably upset me more than finding out it was P2P.  But I wouldn't demand them put an icon about it in the rankings page.  if folk are going to panic about one thing, why not cover all the basics?

Anyway, Yui, hope this clears up any 'enlighten'ment issues.  I meant no offense.  I just think there is too much P2P hate going on.   The more hate amongst 'the community', the less I could see valuable discussions occuring in the Forums.  I mean, I wouldn't want to discuss Game Design or Role-Play enhancements with a bunch of folk who hated me.  And there are a few very vocal, closed-minded people out there.

Peas.

Agreeing with a previous poster, I have no problems with P2P muds, as long as they are upfront about it.

What do irk me, however, are those "free" muds that "encourage" monetary donations by offering powerful in-game items or other benefits in return.

In a mud that I used to play, some of those donation items were almost a necessity to have any sort of success within the game world.

I would pick a monthly fee over this "the more you pay, the more powerful you are" crap anyday.

Melissa, however, did deserve whatever hostility she received from the other posters, just for ths sheer level of condescension in her post.

I wouldn't agree with that at all.  

In previous posts she has been a lot more composed and mature than I'd say a fair share of posters to the forums.

In fact, I think I'd go as far as to say that she more deserves the right to be condescending until folk rise up from the muckslinging, name calling, and flaming.

Reading this thread and noticing the little flagrant war going on between Orion Elder and Threshold, I decided to bring an unbiased and unobstructed view to the whole mess and see if anything can get sorted out. Is Threshold RPG misrepresenting itself by not advertising as a P2P MUD?
Orion elder said:
Orion Elder, if you had just taken the 5 simple seconds and checked out Threshold's information listing yourself, you would have noticed that Threshold RPG does mention itself as a Pay-per-Play MUD. Lying, Orion Elder, weakens your argument greatly. Furthermore, personal attacks might sharpen your ego, but if you think they make your argument stronger, then you are dead wrong. Calling Threshold stupid was certainly uncalled for. Just shows how bitter you really are.

As for Threshold's reply, there were no lies he stated in his responses. The only problem I had with Threshold RPG was this. I'll quote this from Threshold.

I decided to go through the character creation process to see if this was true. Threshold was true to his word on the first case. Before a person can finish the character creation mode and start the game, one the files that they must read is the help register file. I would post the file here, but I would need permission from Threshold; however, the file in there is very specific that Threshold is pay-per-play and highlights something very important. Namely that if people do not register money to a game they don't enjoy, and if that's the case with Threshold, then they should not. Orion Elder, if you are so concerned about deceitful practices Threshold might be playing, then I certainly think you should log into Threshold and read it for yourself.

The only problem I had with Threshold was in the second example he stated in the quote. The website mentioned about registration does mention the requirement of registration, however when a person goes to the Threshold Home Page, there is no link to the registration page from there. I think it would be helpful if there was a link to the registration page from the Threshold Home Page ().

Orion Elder, please quit your bickering. One lesson I learned when I immigrated here was that "there is no such thing as a free lunch". That applies to the situation with the free MUDs vs. pay-per-play MUDs. Most pay-per-play MUDs mention in their information pages that they are such. Furthermore, your argument that Pay-per-play MUD's should not use the ranking list as a means of advertisement is certainly ridiculous. If the opportunity is there and it does not cost you a dime why not take up on it? Most businesses out there certainly would, be they non-profit or profit. Furthermore, if you are furious that the top MUDs on the ranking list are pay-per-play MUDs, then that should tell you something about them. Namely that most of them out there are better overall than the free MUDs.

Orion Elder, while your ideas are certainly noble and well-meaning, they are just out of touch with reality. I hope you realize that.

End of rant.

An Unbiased Forum Poster.

A rather amusing thread. A couple questions, though.

How is it that a P2P mud can 'steal' something from a free mud when the free mud doesn't own it in the first place?

If a free mud is just that, free, then why do they really care about losing the slot to a P2P mud? Or to rephrase, why is it wrong for someone who lives off the fruit of his work to occupy a slot that would otherwise be taken by a hobbyist who doesn't depend on the success of his hobby? It would seem that where 'need' is concerned, a businessman needs customers, a hobbyist merely desires them.

Thanks to whoever pointed out the info thing. For some reason I never noticed it. Stupid me.

I take back my statement on Threshold then.

I can't help but respond to this post - simply because of its condescending nature.  

I'm not defending the use of the word 'steal' in any context.  However, I think we all understand that the term was used figuratively, not literally.  As such, your 'oh-so-clever' analysis fails to shed any light on this subject - as from your tone I deduce you hoped it would.

This is where I start to get annoyed.  

You assert that if a mud is free they wouldn't care about losing players (or not attracting as many new ones as before).  However, had you really attempted to think about this you might have wondered why someone built their mud and posted it TMS in the first place.  Maybe it was because they wanted to attract players?  If this is the case, and I think it is safe to assume so, why would they not, at the very least, be somewhat concerned by competition - whether from free or p2p muds.

Your "need" analysis makes no sense at all.  If need was the determinative factor then what would be the point of voting?  Why not just have every IMP on each mud write a letter to Synozeer each week explaining why they need the top spot over other Muds?  Instead of the top 20 vote-getters, we could have the top 20 neediest muds.

If it has gotten to the point where p2p muds must justify their activities by claiming a "need" for the top spot, then it must appear their arguments are intellectually bankrupt.  However, I doubt anyone would resort to such an argument, as it would appear unbelievably shallow and transparent.

Finally, it appears Achaea et al were doing quite well before they started listing on TMS - how much of a need, in the strictest sense, could they therefore actually have?  And, if their need is that great, they are always welcome to pay for advertisements (those who do not do so already).

*Please note that my post was not directed at any MUD in particular

Like most sweeping statements, this one was pretty dumb.

I think most of us are smart enough to realise that quantity doesn’t necessarily equal quality. This has been said before, but allow me to repeat it:

What the TopMuds list mirrors is 2 things:
1. How large the playerbase of a certain Mud is
2. How far the Admins in a certain Mud are prepared to go in hustling their players to vote

Personally I made a choice long ago, NOT to hassle my players about it. We left the vote buttons on the WebPage, but totally stopped reminding the players on-line to go and click them.

While this certainly lead to a drop of about 20 positions on the list, it didn’t lead to a corresponding drop in our playerbase. From this I draw the conclusion that the position on the list is of very small interest, unless you are in the Top 20. I also suspect that most players PREFER not being disturbed in their gameplay by constant nudging and reminders to go vote.

Try to have a little fate in your game and your players. Mudders are usually extremely loyal to their home Mud. If your game is any good, they are not likely to wander off, especially not to a place where they need to pay for their mudding. In fact the opposite is much more likely to happen. I tend to agree with Melissa, or whoever it was at the beginning of this thread, who stated that P2P muds probably yield more players to the list than they gain from it.