[Kyrie_S]

Heh, i was reading over this board and mused at all this interesting input that is suddenly coming in from the influx of p2p muds. I really only have 3 things to say.

1) People are generally raised on the term, "You get what you pay for"

2) Sadly, they also are raised on the term "The best things in life are free"

3) P.T. Barnum said it best when he uttered "There's a sucker born every minute"

So now ill leave it to the cockroaches

"I'm" thickheaded?

*looks at the clock, already 15 minutes late for work*

Grrr.

[Reason]

I feel like a traitor saying this since I mainly play a p2p, but I see one big problem with this whole thing.  Because of it, I really wish there could be two separate lists, one for free and one for p2p.  If that isn't possible, I think people should be able to just do a search and get only a list of free games.

I've always seen this place as a chance for small, free MUDs to get some exposure and maybe find new players. It's turning into just free advertising for the p2p games instead.  Add to that people like Seraphina posting insults about the little guys and how they don't have players because they aren't good enough and I think a lot of people are going to be leaving.

I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not but it's the one that comes to my head.  I think of it like a community theater, with room for 10 plays to be held at the same time.  Who gets to use the stage depends on how many people want to see the show.  Even though the theater itself gets no money for the plays, it does advertise for all of those that are showing each week.

In the beginning a few small groups write and direct their own plays and everybody has a chance to be the star for the week.  Things would change totally if a Broadway play decided to compete there with well known stars and directors and expensive sets.  Since the theater doesn't charge these people could give a discount on tickets and still make the same amount they would at a larger theater in addition to having the free advertising.

Most of the people who pay to see these plays would be paying anyway, but it still hurts the little guys.  Fewer of the free plays would get to be onstage and those who do may have to resort to getting a few better known actors and paying them or spending money in other ways to compete better which would mean having to charge for their own plays.  

It also hurts the people who go to watch the plays.  There might be some great actors, some potential hit plays and even some very talented directors who never get the chance to be seen because they didn't get the votes.  More and more people would start going to the commercial plays because they assume they're better even when that's not the case.  Eventually the theater would be nothing but an Off Broadway theater who gives free advertising and gets nothing in return, leaving the original groups to hold their plays in a shed behind the main building.

I know it isn't quite that bad - yet, but I do see it as a potential problem.

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: Being addicted to something has nothing to do with will power. Being able to break that addiction has to do with will power. Note the difference.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.  But given contemporary theory on how addiction is defined, I couldn't debate it correctly either.  So I'll concede this one with little regret. :)

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: As for my point about MUDs that need more players, it's this simple. MUDs that charge more than likely have plenty of players. They don't NEED more. Free MUDs... good ones... die on a regular basis because they receive a lack of support.

Simple?  Heh.

Logistically, based solely on the criteria on MU* cost, I would _think_ free MU*s would generally be more popular than p2p ones.  That would seem a simple conclusion to me.  Given the high-player base of some of these p2p games, I would think...
1) they must offer something above and beyond that which is currently considered "good" on a free MU*.
2) their playerbase is unfamiliar with the fact that there are free MU*s.

Frankly, I think, logistically, free MU*s SHOULD be able to benefit more than p2p's with p2p's advertising here or sending their pbase here to vote/forum.  Why?  Because if a player from a p2p MU* finds an equally entertaining free MU* on Top Sites and is not against "free MU*s", there is more of a chance that player will switch than if a player from a free MU* found an equally entertaining p2p MU* on Top Mud Sites and is not against "p2p MU*s".   And when I say equal, I mean EQUAL in terms of area quality, code, theme taste, etc, etc (friends on the playerbase and loyalty to the first MU* not considered).

I can't possibly see a good, free MU* dying from lack of support.  If you mean support in terms of financial support, then the fault is there own, and a free-playing playerbase could, obviously, do little to save that without donations.  If by lack of support you mean a small player-base, then again, the fault is their own by being too ego-driven.  I've seen more than my share of mornings alone on my MU*, whilst I build.  I think my MU*s pretty decent and hope one day it will catch a fairly decent playerbase (imo, btn 30-50 at peak).  We've had our periods of growth, we've had our periods of decline - every MU* has them.  If a MU* ever dies it is because the drive to see it succeed has died out in those running it.  If it is because of lack of a player base, I'd consider that ego driven.  A person running their MU* for the sake of garnering and catering to many players with no true design of their own would probably give up their MU* quicker than someone who carefully crafted their world out of their own desire to express their creativity,  if all their players went to another MU*.  Would you rather have a woman who does everything you say, gives you everything she has, and has no life/opinion of her own - or a woman who is her own and you want to be with because you enjoy that spirit?  My personal opinion is that a "good" MU* is crafted for the sake of bringing a world to life, as opposed to one that offers anything it needs to in order to satisfy its people.  Perhaps would be good to akin it to taking pride in yourself for who you are versus taking pride in the acclaim others give you.

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded.

*smirk*

My official vote is not to put any sort of markings on the ranking page and do nothing to change how things are currently done.

Seeing how that does not seem to be the popular opinion, I am attempting to see things and listen to the opinions of others.  

So I am attempting to separate myself from my "feelings" on the situation, and debate down to where the issue lies.

I do not believe that constitutes being "thickheaded".  While I appreciate you containing anything else you wished to call me that might seem more ....flaming, I would think my debating issues on a side I do not necessarily agree with (to offer up something I feel to be a bad idea in order to prevent something I feel would be worse) would qualify me as something on the other side of the fence from "thickheaded".  Also, as a designated leader within another forum, I am suprised you resorting to common name-calling within a debate forum.  I would think moderators to be better than that.

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: You're trying to compare codebase to cost. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The codebase they have isn't going to cost me any money... a cost factor on the other hand, would.

Yes, indeed. A cost factor _may_ cost you money.  No arguments there.  I am in whole agreement with that.  
And to YOU that may be an incredibly viable thing that separates X MU* from Y MU*.  Many people may agree with you.  Nations may rally behind it.
But that is something important to YOU.
Cost may not be the all-important to others.  It is not important to ME.
To ME, a MU*'s rp/pk ratio is the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
To JFK, a MU*'s codebase may be the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
My opinions and JFK's opinions may differ from most everyone else's out there.  It makes our opinions on what is the most deciding factor in a MU* we choose to swear off no less legit than yours.

I am looking beyond my opinion of "we shouldn't change the current layout because if people want more in-depth knowledge of a MU* they should research beyond the ranking page" and hearing people say "make p2p MU*s declare their misbegotten ways on the ranking page" and interpretting it as "this MU* has a difference that _I_ find important enough that it should be posted on the ranking page".  Again, not very thickheaded.  If you cannot look beyond what you are saying and seeing how it relates to the concept design of the site as a whole, then there probably is no further need to debate this.  I do not wish to step down further and isolate MU*s on a single difference they have and you do not wish to step up from your view that a single difference is an all-encompassing and so important an attribute that it transcends all others and needs its own distinguishing marker on the ranking page as opposed to the info page.

And thats what makes us all unique, no?

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: Getting people interested is one thing. Getting them interested on an assumption that a MUD is more than likely free is another entirely.

Okay, past that.  Most of them seem to have posted it under features as it is listed to post.  Thats the current standard, thats where most of 'em are listing.  Little seem to have any problem with it.  *yay*

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: but putting it on the ranking list is a good step to follow, in my opinion.

:)

Originally Posted by Orion Elder writes: But, either way, good day to you. I'm going to go do something more productive now... like play with a bar of soap, or something.

Well, thats the 2nd time you've left on a "this topic isn't worth my time" sort of note.  Cheers to me to catching, I suppose you'll say.  Still, if it is not important to you or you feel debating it is not productive, then why even debate it?

As for the_logos...

Originally Posted by the_logos writes: I really have no objection to it. It just seems like it's a really arbitrary piece of info to put up there.

Page 2.

Originally Posted by Dulan writes: You forgot Achaea on that listing, TG_Nek.

Errrrr.  I was hoping someone would miss that :p  Not to open it for debate here, but my current opinion is I would look more towards not classifying Achaea as p2p if I had only "free" and "p2p" to choose from.  KaVir is posting some very relevant points on how people who donate time/money/etc to the betterment of the MU* should be rewarded that I agree with (hence my quietness on the topic over there).  If it _were_ needed to be qualified in some sort of "Cost" field in Info, I'd probably suggest it in a spot between 'Free' and 'Pay to Play' called 'Donation Enhanced" or some such.

Anyway.  Thats been an hour + of fun.  I think I'll go grab a bar of soap and do something practical with it too.  :)

[Dulan]

If you use that line of reasoning, TG_Nek, then Simultronics runs no pay to play MUDs.

It is simple. If you have to pay money for benefits - whether that be access to the game, or for uber-cool item of the month - it is a P2P. Using that definition, we avoid the maneuvering of Vryce/Mihaly.

-D

[Seraphina]

Originally Posted by If you use that line of reasoning, TG_Nek, then Simultronics runs no pay to play MUDs. It is simple. If you have to pay money for benefits - whether that be access to the game, or for uber-cool item of the month - it is a P2P. Using that definition, we avoid the maneuvering of Vryce/Mihaly.

Simtronics is pay to play and is very up front about it. You MUST pay. They do offer a 30 day free trial but if you don't pay after that point then your account is closed.

You do not HAVE to pay to play Achaea because you do not HAVE to get the extras offered and your account is not closed because you refrain from buying extras. You can therefore pay Achaea for free.

It can be argued either way therefore it would be up to the mud owner to define how to classify it. Better to offer sufficient choices to be accurate leaving the potential player to draw whatever line is to be drawn themselves.

I do think it is misleading to place payment options in areas a player won't see right away. But it would be equally misleading to call a game pay to play if it can be played for free. One approach is no better than the other because it conceals information.

[Lanthum]

Originally Posted by (Dulan @ Oct. 09 2002,12:34 pm) This is inapplicable, and is solely designed to make the vocal minority's complaint about this appear as if they are the majority. I do not vote in polls. I know many that are for the $'s being added do not vote in polls. And, furthermore, these options are irrelevant. Only three, possibly four, are even truly relevant - and it ignores several options that have been brought up, and are superior to the ones on this poll. -D

I came here looking to get away from Posts like this on other boards, and of coarse, it happens here as well.  

Yes, unlike what you try and say in your second post - your insinuations in this first post are that you "know" what other people do and don't do.

If by this point in your life you haven't figured it out yet - if you haven't got anything constructive to say, just keep your mouth shut.

Please.

[Dulan]

Seraphina, that subject has been covered on TMC too many times to count. Especially in flames about Achaea's administration.

Care to be able to ignore the rules? Pay!
Care for a super-character in next to no time? Pay!
Care for a character that takes 6 months to build and takes someone that pays 6 days to build? Don't pay!

I know TMC has more information there.

Lanthum....Adventurer's Inn? Same person that logged onto a MUD I coded for, spammed the MUD with tells to come play it?

Furthermore, I know it - because I've talked with those people. People voted at first because it was 'amusing'. Now, the glamour of the vote has worn off, and it's unamusing now. Some people have voted that would otherwise not vote, as the vote counts make it obvious, but nonetheless...

-D

[Orion Elder]

First, I will address the point about players. Most people who PAY for a shell account are doing so because they enjoy providing an entertainment for others. I like to entertain people. That's not, however, why I make a MUD. My MUD is hosted on my own machine, and isn't open for players. See the difference? People who pay for a shell, usually, are doing so because they like to entertain. If they can't find people to give them feedback on what they do, they feel as though they have wasted their time. I say this from experience, as I can list five MUDs, right now that I played that died for this reason. That's not even counting the MUDs I have worked for, or have helped with.

So, while that whole 'free' should be enough of a pull... it's not. The average MUDder, in my experience, judges the quality of a MUD not by the quality, but by how many players it has. Lot of players? Good MUD. Not a lot? Gotta suck. I speak, again, from experience. From the MUDs I've played, to the MUDs I've worked on, and to the MUDs I've run. People log in, they don't see people, most of the time they won't even give the MUD a chance.

You log into a p2p, the common human bias already tells you two things... if they're charging, they must have SOMETHING good going... and if they have players, they must be doing something RIGHT. Is this true? Not on your life. They MIGHT be doing something right, and they MIGHT have something good.

Further more, you speak of the logical reasoning. How often have you known of people to be logical? Especially when it comes to entertainment. "Professional Wrestling," anyone?

You may, or may not, see the problem here. I don't know, and honestly I don't really care. I do, however, have an overwhelming need to give my opinion, whether wanted or not, in a thread which, as you pointed out, I feel has dragged on far too long, and in turn is not worth the time. But, it gives me something to do, and I'm bored at the moment.

As for me insulting you, I did no such thing. I said:

Originally Posted by If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded.

Now, that's an 'if' statement. Not sure if you're familiar with programming, but basically, if (variable == true) then (this). So, if (you don't see that) then (I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded). So, basically, you said you don't see that and thus it became an insult to you. So, I would thank you to not make me out to have been insulting you when you confirmed the statement to be true. If, however, you understood my point, then that did not apply to you, anyway. But, that's enough for a sidepoint.

Anybody got some bubble gum they'd like to share? Bah, probably not. Damn conspiracies.

But, before I deviate the topic too much, I'm going to head on out. If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to PM me. *wave*

[Brody]

Originally Posted by Reason says: I've always seen this place as a chance for small, free MUDs to get some exposure and maybe find new players. It's turning into just free advertising for the p2p games instead.

You know, not so long ago, I posted that we should all just sort of grin and bear it as the big pay-to-play games sidle into the rankings here. But Reason's post hits the nail right on the head. Pay-to-play games, if they're doing something right and successfully, have the budget to PAY for advertising. The smaller free games don't. So, when the pay-to-play games dominate the TMS rankings, they're getting what amounts to a free ride.

Perhaps a second list would be best, but ultimately this rests with Synozeer. It's his site; his rules.

[Seraphina]

Originally Posted by Pay-to-play games, if they're doing something right and successfully, have the budget to PAY for advertising. The smaller free games don't. So, when the pay-to-play games dominate the TMS rankings, they're getting what amounts to a free ride.

This sort of speculation is really difficult to nail down. The pay to play muds are bringing more visitors many of whom may never have been exposed to free muds. There is not much point in free advertising if few people see it.

[Maggie]

I think that was the point; if you're pushed back a page or two, few people will see it.  There are some people who come only to promote their own MU*, but many do come looking for one to play.  The p2p games may bring a lot of people, but how many are going to be willing to leave their old game to go to a free one?  My guess is that there will be many more who haven't played p2p before but will decide to try.

I know it's been that way with the game I play; we've gained several new players since coming here, and I haven't heard of one person who quit to play a free MU*.  Whether it's right or wrong for p2p games to be here, I think the people who were here first do have a right to complain.  The 5 new players that a big game gets may seem like nothing to them, but it could be the death of the one they might have chosen if it could have been seen as easily.

[Jazuela]

I quit a P2P for a free game. I was told about it by someone who had read reviews and the "info" stuff on TMS, who also quit a P2P game for the free game. There are at least half a dozen people playing the free game I'm playing now, who came from one of the two P2P games I used to play.

And I wouldn't have played the free game if I hadn't come to this website and checked the reviews, the Info thing, or clicked *from here* to their official website.

We all have our own reasons for playing whatever game we play...and for not playing whatever game we don't play. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and rude of anyone who comes here claiming "oh people don't play these games because" this and that.

The primary reason I'm playing a free game, as opposed to any particular pay-2-play, is because I'm no longer in a financial position to shell out a monthly fee. It's a luxury I simply can't afford. The primary reason I left the P2P game I played has to do with an issue I have with their admin and a couple of staff members. A semi-personal issue, that has little to do with their capabilities to run their game successfully.

Not one of you knows whether I'm representative of the majority, the minority, or just some lone freak who wandered through the cracks. A poll won't change that, no matter how many people vote. People lie, misunderstand, click the wrong thing in error, or otherwise manipulate this sort of thing to skew the results. Hell I could be lying about my reasons right here in this thread, for that matter!

So all y'all just take your theories, your postulations, assumptions, and hypothetical examples and have a blast with them. Just don't believe for a second that they have any significant meaning.

Originally Posted by (Orion Elder @ Oct. 12 2002,02:24 am) As for me insulting you, I did no such thing. I said: Originally Posted by If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded. Now, that's an 'if' statement. Not sure if you're familiar with programming, but basically, if (variable == true) then (this). So, if (you don't see that) then (I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded). So, basically, you said you don't see that and thus it became an insult to you. So, I would thank you to not make me out to have been insulting you when you confirmed the statement to be true. If, however, you understood my point, then that did not apply to you, anyway. But, that's enough for a sidepoint.

Okay, I don't think my points were addressed/disproved so no need to blubber on those.

On the above however...

I am fairly familiar with programming (though admittedly no where near the realm of most of you), but have studied enough philosophy to comprehend how an if/then statement works.

Suppose you were to make some sort of nifty program that had a set of buttons that followed the question "Do you see things as the wise Orion Elder does?", with simple 'Yes' and 'No' labels.  If the person pushed the 'Yes' button he would receive a pre-programmed response of "You must be worth talking to because you are wise yourself".  If a different person pushed the 'No' button he would receive a pre-programmed "You are not worth talking to because you are silly to not agree with the wise Orion Elder! (Did you not see the 'wise' put before his name?)" response.  This is somewhat what you are talking about with the whole programming if/then thing, right?

So I follow the "if" of the statement (as you pointed out , "if you don't see that"), and I can accept part of your "then" statement - where YOU see no need to continue arguing with me.  But, and forgive my ignorance, I fail to see where you have

_A N Y_

right to call me thickheaded for not agreeing with you.  Stubborn, perhaps.  Unyielding.  Determined.  Self-righteous.  Any of these I could see, possibly agree with- but "thickheaded".  Not hardly.

I admit it is a very cleverly veiled insult.  Very cunning, indeed, youngling!  But considering I noted it was tailored to me for originally not agreeing with you- I was quick witted enough to see through the veil for what it was.  

From Merriam-Websters... (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Main Entry: thick·head·ed
Pronunciation: -"he-d&d
Function: adjective
Date: 1707
1 : having a thick head
2 : sluggish and obtuse of mind

If (you think those who have opinions different from yours are thickheaded), then (you should consider the pot calling the kettle black) for not seeing _MY_ opinion.

I mean, I find it difficult to believe you could possibly see one factor of a MU* being so much more drastically important than others that it needs to be segregated on the main page to the exclusion of others.  As if listing people's races in voting polls would be any more important than listing their incomes, religious affiliation, education level, age - or what not.  Maybe to some it would - but possibly not to all.

In closing....

If (you cannot see past a personal opinion on a topic) and (you think your opinion is so much more important than everyone elses) then (perhaps you should consider how that contradicts what a mediator is supposed to do).

"Thickheaded".

[Orion Elder]

In the context I used it, you can see (understand, notice, etc) someone's point without agreeing with it. If you can't see that point, and the one before, then yes... you're thickheaded. If you want to take that as an insult, that is your choice.

On the subject of your points, I did address those. Particularly the one about MUDs that actually need players, versus MUDs that don't need players. You see, those free MUDs, eventually, may contribute to our MUDding community through the release of areas, code, and ideas that may eventually help the MUDding community as a whole. To date, I do not know of a SINGLE p2p (p2p is defined as a MUD where payment is mandatory, or can be used to advance ones character(s)) MUD that has given out some of their code, areas, or shared their ideas on a level other than "we do this... it's really cool, come try it out." Note the lack of explanation or suggestions on HOW to do it. But, let's conveniently skip over that... it gives a good reason to add the markers, which you seem to not want.

Originally Posted by I admit it is a very cleverly veiled insult.  Very cunning, indeed, youngling!  But considering I noted it was tailored to me for originally not agreeing with you- I was quick witted enough to see through the veil for what it was.

Again, how you take it is your choice... but, on the subject of people being egotistical... well, I think the above speaks for itself, Mr. Quickwit.

Originally Posted by I mean, I find it difficult to believe you could possibly see one factor of a MU* being so much more drastically important than others that it needs to be segregated on the main page to the exclusion of others.  As if listing people's races in voting polls would be any more important than listing their incomes, religious affiliation, education level, age - or what not.  Maybe to some it would - but possibly not to all.

Other factors don't affect my real life. Cost does. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you can't, then that is what makes you thickheaded. If you can understand that, then you're just stubborn and oblivious.

As for my age, if we're to believe YOUR profile, you're a 30 year old with a severe glandular disorder.

But, as I said. I think it'd be better to take this to PMs if you're so interested in continuing it, because now we're pretty much entirely off the topic of this thread now. And since I'm the 'youngling' here, I don't have to be the mature one. *smirk*

[Molly]

Originally Posted by You see, those free MUDs, eventually, may contribute to our MUDding community through the release of areas, code, and ideas that may eventually help the MUDding community as a whole. To date, I do not know of a SINGLE p2p (p2p is defined as a MUD where payment is mandatory, or can be used to advance ones character(s)) MUD that has given out some of their code, areas, or shared their ideas on a level other than "we do this... it's really cool, come try it out." Note the lack of explanation or suggestions on HOW to do it.

It would be rather unreasonable to expect a P2P mud to share parts of their code, wouldn't it? After all, they make money on their concept, so why give it out for free? That would be like expecting a big drug company to publish the exact recipe for the latest product that they just spent X years and Y $ to develop and are now planning to finally make a profit from.

However, this does not mean that they cannot add to the 'community' in different ways, by taking part in the Board discussions and sharing their experiences. Many of the P2P administrators that post here strike me as mature and vocal persons, who often have interesting angles to different subjects. After all, they do run a successful business, and there are several experiences in this process that they could share with the rest of us