|
But it wouldn't have to be offered directly - the smart approach would be to make the offer to only a handful of players, and specifically select those who are fantatically loyal (except for one who is known for being a troublemaker). Those players would then let their friends know, and it would spread around so that most players had only heard it from another player.
You could even create an alternative imm character just for the task - list them as a new apprentice coder or something, and if everything does backfire you could publically apologise, claim that the coder had added the code without the rest of the imms realising, and that he had now been removed from the staff. You'd still get the free publicity of a huge flame war, and you'd have the benefit of making yourself look both innocent and professional about it.
That depends - and even if it did, how many of those would be players who had just heard it second or third hand? And even then, how can the players prove it - particularly if there's no obvious way to tell the difference? How could you tell that those players hadn't just jumped on the bandwagon, having read one of those negative reviews? Reviews, I might add, which you (the admin) had written yourself, and which contained other points that could be disproved (ie, it could be shown that the "reviewer" had lied about other points).
In particular, what if there aren't even any bonuses - what if it was just a temporary thing, which has been removed? Many players seem to place a lot of stock in rumours, particularly those they think are secret.
I remember many years ago some players complaining to me that the Crab fighting stance on my mud was far too powerful, and that it needed to be downgraded because certain players were using it to win all their fights. They wouldn't believe me when I truthfully told them that that stance hadn't been coded yet - that it was in fact the same as having no fighting stance at all, and put the user at a serious disadvantage. Circulating such a rumour for voting would be easier than that, as it wouldn't even be something they could disprove (and in a competitive mud, many of them wouldn't consider it worth the chance - better to vote just to be safe).
Yet speaking as someone who has audited many muds, I can tell you that the scenario I describe would be extremely difficult and time consuming to deal with.
|