[ritaker]

The sword of truth mud, called sotmud, is a diku mud derivitive using key elements from Mume and Wotmud. We are currently atempting to futher emulate those muds and are recoding elemnts of the c into c++ to take advantage of the library. We're also writing a custom language to add extentions to the mud. We need one good coder, or maybe a few decents ones we can teach. Coders are always given one rank below implementership. As always creating a mud with over 1153 planned zones needs builders Come show up. At sotmud.genesismuds.com port 4000. Soon to be somtud.org port 4000 (when the box gets up.)

[Dulan]

I'd highly recommend learning to use the English language before trying to learn a programming language. It may help there. Or look for people that know about a certain programming language, as this case may be.

-D

[ritaker]

what an utterly unconstruvtice thing to say, thats also very mean.

[ritaker]

what an utterly unconstruvtice thing to say, thats also very mean.
What do you mean anyways, my english is that bad, the post was writen quikly.

[Dulan]

And that post is what everyone sees that hears/considers working for your MUD.

Think about that. First impression. Bad. That sorta thing?

-D

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by ritaker wrote: Coders are always given one rank below implementership

Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do your "implementors" do, if the implementation is done by lower-level staff?

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do your "implementors" do, if the implementation is done by lower-level staff?

I rather resent that remark. It mirrors the usual arrogance of Coders. Being a Builder myself, I work harder than most imms. In my opinion the zones are just as important for a mud as the code. I have an imp position with full shell access. You are sort of implying that Builders don't deserve an imp position.

As for Ritaker's mud, they might well have been developing it for quite some time, and just want more coders to speed up the work. If that is the case I can well understand why a new coder wouldn't automatically get a top position.

That said, hiring coders 'from the street' is a rather dumb and extremely risky thing to do. It still amazes me why mud owners trust people they don't even know the first thing about with full shell access, and then complain on Discussion boards a couple of months later, because the mud was stolen, lock stock and barrel, from under their very nose.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I rather resent that remark. It mirrors the usual arrogance of Coders. Being a Builder myself, I work harder than most imms.

It has nothing to do with arrogance, or with how much work you put in, but with the simple definition of the word "implementor". If you don't code, you're not implementing, ergo you're not an implementor. You might be an admin - you might even be the owner - but if you're not implementing, you're not, by definition, an implementor.

Put it another way, if one of your staff spent lots of time running really great quests on your mud, and worked really hard, would you allow them to call themselves a "builder" - even if they didn't actually build anything?

[Caharin]

I guess I'd just point out that Wizard's Realm is a well established Sword of Truth mud. It's been open for about two years and is quite popular.
bt5.iwvisp.com
port 6667

[ritaker]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Aug. 14 2002,09:04 am) As for Ritaker's mud, they might well have been developing it for quite some time, and just want more coders to speed up the work. If that is the case I can well understand why a new coder wouldn't automatically get a top position. That said, hiring coders 'from the street' is a rather dumb and extremely risky thing to do. It still amazes me why mud owners trust people they don't even know the first thing about with full shell access, and then complain on Discussion boards a couple of months later, because the mud was stolen, lock stock and barrel, from under their very nose.

Thankyou I code but like help. Rewriting a mud is hard. And before I trust someone I test them Coders are also paid cash for there work. That said, (dedicated) builders imo are just as important as coders.

[Dulan]

Joy.

We've got a new license violating MUD. -sigh-

When will people ever bother to read and comprehend the license to their damn base?

-D

[ritaker]

thats not in violation of anything. Its me paying for work. No profit is being made by the owners.

[Dulan]

....

You clueless? Profit being made on any part.

That includes profit being made by the coders. Re-read the damn license, boy.

-D

[tresspassor]

Originally Posted by ritaker wrote: Coders are always given one rank below implementership

Originally Posted by KaVir wrote: Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do your "implementors" do, if the implementation is done by lower-level staff?

Originally Posted by KaVir wrote: It has nothing to do with arrogance, or with how much work you put in, but with the simple definition of the word "implementor".  If you don't code, you're not implementing, ergo you're not an implementor.  You might be an admin - you might even be the owner - but if you're not implementing, you're not, by definition, an implementor

Implementor
to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures

If the game was built on 2 servers, as in a development and production environment.

Then coders would write code on the dev machine and you'd need implementors to actually move the approved code from there to production. Not all coders would be implementors (and not all implementors would be coders) as you may not want too many people with access to the production environment.

I dont think this is how it is done in the mud in question, just how it could possibly make sense to have an implementor and coder as seperate deptartments of administration.

*shrug* Then again, up until now I thought it was spelled and pronounced implementator.

[Orion Elder]

On the issue of paying a programmer:

Quoted from an e-mail to myself on the subject, from Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt:

Originally Posted by People often sees this the wrong way around. 'Gribble' is in no trouble at all, since he for sure does not violate the licence. You can hardly say he is making a profit, since he in fact is only having an expense.

So, Dulan, your statements that he would violate the license by paying a coder is inaccurate. He is in no way violating the license by doing so.

Originally Posted by The problem here is that the _programmer_ will technically be voilating the licence, unless the programmers work is entirely detached from the sourcecode. This _can_ be accomplished by the programmer making functions and extensions that are seperate from the sourcecode, without using of the sourcecode. (i.e. they can be compiled seperately and does not rely on anything in the sourcecode), and then Gribble can include these functions in the game (but he will have to do some programming, or the programmer must do this free of charge).

But, as we can see from the above, unless under special conditions, the coder would be violating the license.

Originally Posted by I would however not spend much time running after people in this kind of scenario. I am mostly concerned where people turn the game into a pay-per-play scenario. -- Hans-Henrik

So, more or less, this comes down to how it is done. And, it can be done without breaking the license, as Mr. Stærfeldt mentioned in his message on the subject.

[Dulan]

I've spoken to Hans-Henrik on the same subject several months ago, Orion.

He stated that even by saying "you'll get X books per year for being on staff" was not only against the license's wording, but against its spirit. I really doubt that he'd do a complete 180, and then change it from "even offering bubblegum is not okay" to "yeah, it's fine" in a couple months.

I'll dig up that email in a bit.

-D

[Molly]

Originally Posted by I'll dig up that email in a bit.

Yes, Dulan, I think you'd better dig up that e-mail. If you are going to virtually call someone a liar, you should be prepared to back it up with hard facts.

Originally Posted by If you don't code, you're not implementing, ergo you're not an implementor.   Put it another way, if one of your staff spent lots of time running really great quests on your mud, and worked really hard, would you allow them to call themselves a "builder" - even if they didn't actually build anything?

I guess this is a case of semantic. My wordbook defines Implement as 'accomplish, achieve' or 'to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures'. Within that definition, Builders implement too. When I put the zones I made in the game and connect them to the rest of the world, I am implementing them.

Most likely Implementor was a title first used for the coders in the mud world. To most people in the mudding community today however, I think Implementor mainly means RANK - the top guy in the mud, whatever their actual background may be. Rather like an Executive or a Director is the one that carries out the actions and decisions, based on the job mostly done by others in a firm. The Director of an Engineer Company does not necessarily need to be an engineer, the Director of a hospital does not need to be a doctor. All Implementors are de facto not coders, even if most of them know at least something about code. And the Mud owner is always Implementor, since that is top rank.

As for Questors I really admire their work and it is very important for the mud, but they are in fact not creating anything that lasts, therefore by definition would not be Builders, and I actually see no reason why they would want to call themselves that either - unless of course they build too. It could well be that had Questor had Implementor's rank on a mud however, even though I also see little reason for a Questor to have shell access, unless he also does some coding or building

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Most likely Implementor was a title first used for the coders in the mud world. To most people in the mudding community today however, I think Implementor mainly means RANK - the top guy in the mud, whatever their actual background may be.

But an implementor is still, by definition, someone who implements stuff within the mud.

Originally Posted by The Director of an Engineer Company does not necessarily need to be an engineer, the Director of a hospital does not need to be a doctor.

But they're not calling themselves engineers or doctors - they're calling themselves directors. And a director, by definition, is someone who directs - just as an implementor is someone who implements.

Originally Posted by All Implementors are de facto not coders, even if most of them know at least something about code. And the Mud owner is always Implementor, since that is top rank.

That depends on what codebase you're using. Some stock codebases do actually come with "implementor" as a title for the top level immortal, but that's not really any more accurate than muds which have "builder" as a title for a specific immortal level (unless all builders are literally of that specific level).

Originally Posted by As for Questors I really admire their work and it is very important for the mud, but they are in fact not creating anything that lasts, therefore by definition would not be Builders, and I actually see no reason why they would want to call themselves that either

Which is exactly the same way as I feel about implementors. I suppose the quest makers could argue that they were helping "build" the popularity of the mud by running quests for the players, but that's not the real meaning of "builder" - just as someone who doesn't implement features isn't fulfilling the real meaning of "implementor".

[Orion Elder]

Originally Posted by He stated that even by saying "you'll get X books per year for being on staff" was not only against the license's wording, but against its spirit. I really doubt that he'd do a complete 180,