[WarHound]

Recently I spent 9+ hours on a game, busting my ass to level up and make a few friends. I played this game back in the day, and it was far more enjoyable then. When I commented over globals on my dislike for a few recent changes, I apparently woke the wrath of a couple immortals, who discussed it and decided that my name was not appropriate.

Well whoopty ****ing doo! After 9 hours of gameplay, 10+ other immortals being on while I chatted it up over globals, these two decide I'm inappropriate.

Now, I for one will NEVER return to this hole of a game, and I would very much like to submit a review. While I'm sure it wouldn't be flowery and full of praise, there are alot of great points of the Mud I would like to share with everyone, and of course a few detractors.

BUT, they've removed the review option. Why?

We've all heard the 'Angry FlamersVSNormal Players' review argument, but it still doesn't float with me. Sure, alot of the reviews we read are filled with nonsensical flaming chaff, but there are always the few objective people that will throw in a quality review. I know I have learned to distinguish between these fairly easily.

My question is, why do they get a choice? This is a community for Mudders to come together and find new games, no?

I know that from here on out I refuse to play or even deign to notice ANY game that denies me the right to review them, regardless of the content of my review.

If anyone who remembers Toke from today on their mud, thank your Immortals for me. THey've opened my eyes about a few things.

[Molly]

You know, I totally agree with you on this.

Every time I see a Mud not accepting reviews, it makes me deeply suspicious about the Admin and fun potential of that mud.

Disgruntled players? We all get them. So why can most Muds handle the odd bad review from a disgruntled player, while others dodge them by not accepting reviews at all? It kinda makes me ask myself what they've got to hide.

Maybe some Muds get more disgruntled players than the average? And maybe there's a reason for that too?

[Atyreus]

WarHound's post is a strong argument against accepting reviews in that it provides a perfect example of most of the reviews that do get posted. This is not because it is a negative review, but because it is a completely useless review. I have almost absolutely no idea as to why he didn't like the mud in question other than that he had some tiff with the admin over his name. For example, I don't know (1) if his comments over globals were civil, (2) if the admin based their decision about the appropriateness of his name on those comments or if there were other reasons, such as it being in violation of their naming guidelines, (3) whether they were requiring him to reroll because of an inappropriate name or just requiring him to change the name.

Now, maybe the review he was going to write would have addressed all the above concerns or maybe it wasn't going to touch on his particular spat with the admin at all, but a random perusal through the reviews posted to this site make it pretty clear that his rant is largely typical of the quality one can expect from such reviews.

Generously speaking, I'd say maybe 5% of the reviews posted at Topmudsites are useful, and almost all of those are positive reviews. At the time of this writing, the six most recent reviews listed on the home page are all complete rubbish. The best of these are so vague as to be useless, and the rest are poorly written, completely un-thought-out wastes of disk space. One isn't even for the game that it is supposed to be a review of.

Given that, I don't fault admins at all for not accepting reviews and I think it is ridiculous to assume that this would be seen as something that should cast said admins in a suspicious light. Personally, if I were to use most of the reviews on this site (even the positive ones) as a basis for my opinions about the muds reviewed, I probably wouldn't give any of the muds reviewed a second glance. Admins aren't so much at the mercy of negative reviewers as they are of just plain bad reviewers who really should learn to take a bit more time to develop a coherent line of thought and come up with something more substantive than "I've only ever played one mud, but this is clearly the best mud around." Taking time to use a spell checker probably wouldn't hurt either.

And that's taking positive reviews into account. If you just look at the negative reviews, the preponderance of obvious griefer reviews makes the whole review section seem largely worthless.

[WarHound]

My post here wasn't really about my own review, but denying us the right to review their mud at all. So, I don't think my post was 'a completely useless review'. If I had been given the oppurtunity, I would have given a fine review, showing both the good and the bad.

Alot of different things went into my ultimate decision to leave this mud for good, the name thing was just what set it off. I understand the need for believable, setting-appropriate names and don't blame them for enforcing their rules. What I do object to is playing there for a few days, logging numerous hours on my character in full view of many many immortals, and then getting deleted {no renames} because I voiced dislike about a small number of their latest changes. I was polite and didn't flame in the least.

Once again, most of us who read the reviews looking for a new mud to play can distinguish fairly easily between a disgruntled player, a n00b with nothing but praise for their pile o' mud, and the seriously objective reviewer.

As I said in my initial post, there is alot about hte mud in question that was fantastic. The theme is one of my favorites, and they've done a fine job with it. Zones and room descriptions are some of the best I've seen and the combat code is almost flawless. On the otherhand, RP is seriously lacking, the pbase is kinda rude and the imms seem to hold alot of double standards...

Even though I was tiffed, I would not have flamed this mud into oblivon, because once again there are alot of fine qualities that others might enjoy. RP isn't in the cards for some people, others might not care to interact alot with the players and Immortals can be lived with, no?

But, instead of accepting and addressing reviews, both positive and negative, they hide from any amount of controversy or criticism.

Once again, this is a community for Mudders to come together and discuss our muds, their virtues and vices, and wether or not we should go to that mud over there. Right?

I'll agree that most of the reviews here are chaff, but there is no reason to allow them to stay in the review list. By removing our right to comment on the listed muds, we're only hurting the community.

Rock and Roll.

[Jazuela]

You don't have a 'right' to review. Where do you get off assuming you do?

The forum and review section, and in fact the entire website is set up with very specific things in mind, for very specific reasons, by a specific person (Synozeer). Synozeer made the decision based on what I assumed was sound reasoning. It's been this way as long as I've been here in this forum, and probably a lot longer than that. And you show up saying you think Synozeer shouldn't remove your 'right' to review?

Sour grapes, dood. Get over it.

[Atyreus]

Originally Posted by Once again, most of us who read the reviews looking for a new mud to play can distinguish fairly easily between a disgruntled player, a n00b with nothing but praise for their pile o' mud, and the seriously objective reviewer.

It's certainly easy enough, but the problem isn't being able to distinguish the good from the bad -- it's having to wade through so much bad just to find a decent, helpful review to begin with.

Originally Posted by But, instead of accepting and addressing reviews, both positive and negative, they hide from any amount of controversy or criticism.

We shouldn't just leap to the conclusion that admin refuse to accept reviews simply to hide from controversy or criticism.  I suppose there could very well be admin who for whatever bizarre reason just don't want their players to have a free forum to speak about whatever gripes they might have about the mud in question.  But some may just feel that giving voice to the griefers isn't worth whatever benefits allowing reviews might offer, and others may (like myself) just feel that the review section is largely worthless and unlikely to benefit the mud even were the reviews to be largely positive.

If the review section were moderated, or if it allowed for responses to reviews or requests for clarifications of opinions or statements made in reviews, I might feel differently about them.  As it stands though, I don't see that it would benefit 'the community' to require muds to accept reviews, because I don't really see the reviews offering any real benefit in their current format.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 15 2004,18:15) Every time I see a Mud not accepting reviews, it makes me deeply suspicious about the Admin and fun potential of that mud.

What is to be suspcious of? Do you watch the active thread list on the front page? There is almost always at least one thread with a title like "To the reviewer of <insert mudname> who is full of crap."

A very large reason there are less quality discussions is because such a huge percentage of the traffic is people complaining about bogus troll reviews.

99% (if not closer to 100%) of all reviews fall into one of two equally self-serving categories:

1) Worthless fanboi drivel (written either by mud staff themselves or by players trying to curry favor). Staff write these thinking it will drive traffic to their game. Fanbois write either them thinking it will get them in-game benefits from the staff or hoping to lure more folks to the game they blindly and zealously support. Both of them are wrong. These reviews accomplish neither.

or

2) Trolls trying to hurt a mud either to benefit their own mud or because they are angry that the mud admins in question had the nerve to enforce the rules of their game. Trolls get a kick out of these because they think they are "sticking it to the man" when they write them. They are wrong. Their immature vitriol is generally obvious to any potential player worth having.


Personally, I think TMS shouldn't have reviews at all unless Synozeer wants to find a couple of talented, objective people to write them all. Randomly submitted reviews are garbage. I can understand why Syn has them because they generate traffic. Traffic = advertising revenue = web site not shutting down.

Originally Posted by Disgruntled players? We all get them. So why can most Muds handle the odd bad review from a disgruntled player, while others dodge them by not accepting reviews at all? It kinda makes me ask myself what they've got to hide.

Perhaps you don't see dealing with outright libel as a waste of your time. Folks running large, successful games do.

Since reviews generate virtually ZERO benefit to the muds involved (see above regarding the self serving nature of reviews), correcting outright lies is a tremendous waste of time. Unfortunately, if you allow reviews and do *NOT* correct the libelous ones, there are a lot of people who take that as an admission. While it could be argued that the admins just shouldn't care about their reputations being dragged through the mud, some folks care about their reputation and just cannot turn a blind eye to the abuse. Thus, they waste enormous time trying to correct the lies.

This is not time well spent. It is time the admins could spend working on their game.

Originally Posted by Maybe some Muds get more disgruntled players than the average? And maybe there's a reason for that too?

Yes. The more successful and the higher quality your game is the more troll reviews you will get. Why? Jealousy mainly. The better you are the harder such jealous cretins will work to try and bring you down.

Further, the more successful you are, the more players you have, and by the odds alone the more trolls you'll have to deal with.

Are you still suspicious?

Perhaps these rational and well reasoned explanations for why a lot of mud admins prefer not to deal with the headache of reviews will eliminate that suspicion.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 15 2004,20:18) My post here wasn't really about my own review, but denying us the right to review their mud at all.

Who gave you the "right" to review their mud?

Honestly, your arrogance is outstanding.

How about instead of wasting your time ripping on someone else's creative efforts, go out and beat them at their own game. Make a better game than they did, and show them how to do things right.

[Crystal]

Wait, were you the one that was trying to review Materia Magica? Even posting two reviews on Aardwolf's review section to make sure it's "SEEN"?

I can understand you wanting to review, and yes it might seem suspicious to some, but no, a MUD is required to let anyone review. And -if- you were the said person above, dude, that was extremely lame. Especially to do that to Aardwolf.

I personally don't see reviews to be helpful at all. They're for the most part biased (not all, but most), either someone is ****ed off, or someone is trying to attract more players. Your best judgement is trying it out for yourself. If you find out the MUD sucks, then move on. I have no doubt that you'll find another crappy MUD

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Crystal @ Jan. 16 2004,00:05) Wait, were you the one that was trying to review Materia Magica? Even posting two reviews on Aardwolf's review section to make sure it's "SEEN"?

Crystal, who are you responding to?

Your post came after two of my own, but I do not believe anything you wrote was addressed towards me or my posts.

Could you clarify? Quoting whoever you are addressing is often a wise course.

[Crystal]

Ah, sorry I was responding to the original post made by Warhound.

[WarHound]

I'm most definately not the materia magic reviewer, as they were out to flame while I simply wanted to review and anyone with an ounce of sense can see that

Arrogance, Aristotle? For attempting to submit an unbiased review about a game that I would probably reccomend to someone? For assuming I have the right to bitch about things I don't like, and to praise things that I do? I had no plans to 'rip' on them, and while in my first post I'll admit I was a little angry, I purposely left the Mud's name out because I didn't want to be seen as a random flamer.

I don't understand how you can bash me like this. I could have posted my review in the forums like I've seen a score of other people do. I could have bashed them into nothingness or created a phantom mud with the same name like someone recently did to review them and slammed them more.

I didn't, though. What I did is come and ask you all what you thought of this and to discuss it maturely. Instead, I get told 'GET OVER IT!' and ' SOUR GRAPES D00D', along with 'YOUR ARROGANCE IS ASTOUNDING! Your [scorn]RIGHT[/scorn] to review muds? Laughable!'.

*shrugs* I'm sure Synozeer has good reason for allowing the removal of the review option, but as yet I've not heard it.

I know of alot of people in the Mudding World who would see my efforts to review this game *properly* as commendable and as an attempt to enrich our community. Instead, one of the most visible admins from one of the most played RPI's around slams me for trying.

Hah. I wrote a good review of Threshold awhile ago, a year or two, but now I'm kinda regretful. I liked your mud's atmosphere, quests and but I could see most of your players as the flamers who lurk around here, writing these hordes of **** reviews and generally making the mudding community poorer. Except for you, of course, who they make richer...[/cheapshot] Enjoy it.

Does my arrogance have no end? *snicker* Forget it people, I don't care anymore.

Maybe I can find a pay to play... Or a non-RP mud... Or maybe I'll go play EQ, because the Mudding world is fast becoming Everquest without the pictures but with the assholes... Or maybe I could slam my head in the door.

I personally dont mind reviews good or bad! I believe we all have are right to are ideas, though many do abuse the system when they are mad or wanting to gain from it, but over all I think it is a ok tool. Personally I would like a player to email me if they have a problem and let me try to deal with it and try to fix what is going on, but would not go after someone if they did get mad and posted a bad review, I might if I waist the energy to remember it? to go and ask them what is up, but most of the time I just continue on and help the players were and when I can

just my 2 cents on this
love sargon

Untamed lands person that believes that it is the players that make the game not the code or IMM's! (just wish the players would realize that they have the power to make a game what they want if they just try!

[Ntanel]

Doh, accidently double submitted. Continue downwards!

[Ntanel]

My MUD does not want reviews of it.  You know why?  It is an Embassy!  We have areas that are under contruction, not meant for leveling or are not open to players.  I would hate for some mook to come on, try to play and then leave a bad review.  No matter how much you say you are not a leveling MUD, people still try.

Sure, those in the know would consider the reviewer a mook for not reading we are not open to players.  The others out there who are uninformed would assume that MudWorld as a whole is like ResortMUD is and that would be just wrong. ResortMUD is incomplete and no fun when trying to level.

Sometimes not accepting reviews is warranted!

[WarHound]

I see your point Ntanel, but is that really a valid reason to let muds refuse all reviews? Instead of refusing reviews that would be negative due to, by your own admission, InGame problems, you could read these reveiws and take steps to fix the problems. {I uinderstand that MudWorld isn't a true Mu*, but in general.}

Unfinished? Why are you open?
Unfinished Zones cluttering up the open areas? Close the zones. Quarantine them, so to speak.
Nazi admins? Fire them or set up some behavioral guidelines.

Once again, I could have sworn this is a place for Mudders to come together, discuss our favorite Muds and their aspects.

Maybe I was mistaken...

[Ntanel]

Forgive me WarHound, I was not arguing your point. I was defending why some types of MUDs should not allow reviews. Not why you should not.

I am in the frame of mind that if you do not want a review, then do not accept reviews. Sometimes they are just more trouble then they are worth.

There are good and bad people and those who are bad use reviews in a less than fair way that only looks badly on the game in which it is about.

Last I checked, the MudWorld staff and hopefully the people here are democratic minded enough to ultimately feel it is a person's right to choose.

In the end, WarHound, it is your choice. You do what you want, with or without reason and hope that those who are loyal understand and those who are not go elsewhere.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 16 2004,01:11) Arrogance, Aristotle? For attempting to submit an unbiased review about a game that I would probably reccomend to someone?

No. Arrogant for claiming you had a "right" to do so.

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 16 2004,01:11) I'm sure Synozeer has good reason for allowing the removal of the review option, but as yet I've not heard it.

Then pay attention. Go back and read my post on page 1 where I explained in great detail why many people turn off the review option.

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 16 2004,01:11) Hah. I wrote a good review of Threshold awhile ago, a year or two, but now I'm kinda regretful. I liked your mud's atmosphere, quests and but I could see most of your players as the flamers who lurk around here, writing these hordes of **** reviews and generally making the mudding community poorer.

Now you are just lying. I have had reviews turned off since the first day I added Threshold to this database. That was 3+ years ago. Furthermore, I know of no Threshold players who regularly read or post here. That doesn't mean there aren't any, but if they are as pervasive as you claim I would know of at least one.

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 16 2004,01:11) Or maybe I'll go play EQ, because the Mudding world is fast becoming Everquest without the pictures but with the assholes...

Funny you mention that since *you* are one of the (bleeps).

Originally Posted by (WarHound @ Jan. 16 2004,01:11) Or maybe I could slam my head in the door.

One less (bleep). Go with that.

Far too often people forget that the charter purpose behind the founding of TMS was to help MUDs get publicity.

If a MUD admin thinks reviews waste too much of their time and energy, that isn't helping.

[Molly]

Quote Threshold Jan. 15 2004,237

Originally Posted by Are you still suspicious? Perhaps these rational and well reasoned explanations for why a lot of mud admins prefer not to deal with the headache of reviews will eliminate that suspicion.

Yes I am still suspicious. YOU may find your explanations ‘rational and well reasoned’  - I think that you dodge the real issue; Why do certain Muds get bashed more than others?

You offer two explanations for this:

Originally Posted by The more successful and the higher quality your game is the more troll reviews you will get. Why? Jealousy mainly. The better you are the harder such jealous cretins will work to try and bring you down. Further, the more successful you are, the more players you have, and by the odds alone the more trolls you'll have to deal with.

The second statement I can agree with. Naturally the larger the playerbase, the more Twinks you get. You might even get more than the usual percentage, because Twinks are attracted to high numbers.

But the first one; Oh, please...

You are actually asserting that other Admins – (or jealous cretins, as you so politely label them) - would post bad reviews about your game, because it has ‘high quality’, and they are jealous of that? You obviously must be referring to Admins, because no ‘disgruntled player’ would bash you for your game having ‘high quality’, players have other reasons for being disgruntled (some of them valid, but others not).

You even specify ‘high quality’, when I mostly see ‘successful’ defined as ‘large playerbase’ – (which can be debated, but let’s leave that out for the moment). With ‘high quality’ I assume you mean a highly developed codebase, good, challenging and well-written zones and several attractive ‘features’ that not every Mud on the net has?

So what are you saying here? That other Admins would play your game, find out that it has higher quality and better features than their own, and then post a bad review out of sheer spite and jealousy? That is not only generally insulting and extremely arrogant, it strikes me as positively paranoid.

There may have been a few cases where one Admin bashed a competitor’s Mud, but so far most that I have seen have been related to ‘Mud cloning’ – (where one of the Staff takes off with the code, or part of it, and starts a new Mud on the same theme, while stealing a number of players in the process). In the large bulk of reviews - (which I incidentally agree are mostly worthless) - these cases are next to negligible, and also easily spotted and mainly reflects bad on the person that writes the flame. So I think we can safely leave the Mud Admins out of this discussion and stick to the disgruntled players.

Now there are of course several reasons why players may be upset, and most of those cases are perfectly rational and good from the Admin’s point of view. For instance, most players get upset by extensive changes to the game engine, especially the following, which are all done for balancing purposes or to improve the game:

- Downgrading of equipment, in particular unbalanced equip
- General upgrading of Mob strength and/or downgrading of player strength to make ‘leveling’ slower
- Changing the stats of Races, Classes and/or Clans, to make them more equal in strength
- Getting rid of bugs in the code that are used by players to ‘powerlevel’ or cheat
- Massive code changes, which mean that the players suddenly have to learn a lot of new things
- Pwipes (usually done as a last resort to get an unbalanced mud back in shape)

All these changes may be totally valid to the Admin, and are done for the general benefit of the Mud. In the long run they are probably all positive. But the players don’t see it that way. They just see that they lose ‘features’ they like, and that killing mobs and levelling, which is usually their main goal, suddenly gets a lot harder. So naturally they whine, bitch and moan, and some may even leave the Mud in protest.

But do they generally run off to post bad reviews of the Mud? No. Most of them don’t. If there is a way to vent within the mud – on channels or boards – that’s what they do. They sit at the fountain for a week or two, protesting and complaining. Then they adjust and go back to playing. Even the ones that ran off mostly return in a couple of months, because most players are amazingly loyal to their home Mud.

However; if free speech is generally suppressed within the Mud, if all ‘negative’ posts are immediately removed from the boards, if all criticism on open channels is immediately suppressed by silencing the player, if the ones that persist in their critique even get sitebanned – THEN they run off and post bad reviews. Why? Because they have been deprived of any other way to express their feelings.

And you know what? I think this reflects badly NOT on the player who writes the bad review, but on the Admin. Because the Admin should have had some understanding about how these changes would affect the players. They should have had the patience and tolerance to wait out the storm, knowing that it would subside after a while. They should have tried to explain the motives why the changes were necessary. And in the cases where there actually might have been some valid basis for the complaints – and yes, mistakes do occur, however good your intentions – then they should have had the good sense to weed out the valid complaints from the common whining and to rectify whatever went wrong.

Other things that upsets players and might generate some bad reviews are extensive changes of policy, mainly these:
- When a formerly free Mud decides to become commercial
- When a former mainly Hack’n’Slash Mud decides to become RP enforced.

In these cases I think the players are justified in their frustration. They feel that they joined the Mud under false pretences. P2P and RPI may be what lots of players like, but that’s not what attracted them to this particular Mud in the first place, and both are vast upheavals for a player. They may have spent a lot of time and effort in developing a char, made a lot of friends there, and in one stroke of policy change the Mud has turned into something they dislike. Maybe there would have been better ways to handle their frustration than to write a flame review, but I actually feel for them.

But all the above things have nothing really to do with ‘quality’, or even with size of playerbase. They have to do with changes. They might happen in any mud, big or small, good or bad, stock or custom, at a given time. They happen more often in developing muds than in stagnant Muds, but this does in no way mean that a stagnant mud is better. Personally I’d much rather cope with some changes and bugs along the way as the price for development. A stagnant Mud slowly dies, because nobody really cares any more. So why don’t all developing Muds disable reviews then? Obviously they don't. Disabling all reviews is actually fairly rare.

The above things do however relate to HOW the Admin handles certain situations. And this brings me back to the reasons why I think some Muds would attract more bad reviews than the average, and consequently why they might choose to disallow them completely. (Note that I said SOME, not all. There may actually be some valid reasons for not accepting reviews. So far I haven’t seen any, with the exception of Ntanel’s ; that the Mud isn’t actually playable.)

You offered two explanations for bad reviews, I’ll offer some more. My theory is that the following categories of Muds attract a larger percentage of negative reviews

- Muds where the Admin are hard-handed, inflexible or even arrogant in dealing with player problems
- Muds where free speech is widely suppressed
- Muds with an abundance of rules that a majority of the players find unnecessary or even stupid

And of course the obvious cases:

- Muds that operate with a stolen codebase, or where serious questions about the legitimacy have been raised
- Muds with cheating Admin
- Muds with widespread bias and favouritism among the imms
- Muds with a nasty playerbase; newbiekillers, bullies, pkillers that run amok
- Muds that actually DO have something to hide

So, yes, I am still suspicious.

With the current rules it is of course every Admin’s right to decide whether they want to accept reviews or not. It also the right of everybody else to draw their own conclusions from that. I’ve stated some of my own conclusions above. Others may draw different ones.

[Estarra]

I'm sure MUDs choose not to accept reviews for a variety of reasons, of which I wouldn't presume to second-guess. However, for myself, and granted I presently don't have a MUD listed on TMS (though gods willing I will before the end of the year!), I have to ask myself who is likely to submit reviews. Of the 99% of the reviews I've read (or skimmed) here, they fall into two categories:

1) Reviews that bash a MUD. As Molly outlined, there certainly can be many well deserved reasons to be disgruntled; however, the fact remains that the tone and tenor of those reviews are clearly one-sided, being at best thinly veiled attempts to present a "balanced" review (i.e., Acme MUD has some excellent features, but . . .) or at worst downright mean-spirited attacks.

2) Reviews that rave for a MUD. These reviewers seem to present no criticism of the MUD and suspiciously sound as though they have been prompted by admins to review the MUD (some announce post asking, "hey, if you like us, write a review"--in which case the reviews are simply players brown-nosing in the expectation that the admins will take notice). Sometimes it appears the reviews were written by admins themselves. Whatever the reason, its obvious the reviewers simply think their MUD is the best and want to convince everyone else of the same.

How helpful are either of these types of reviews? Not bloody much. The perfect reviewer would be by someone who has little or no preconceived expectations, biases, or motivation other than to objectively as possible rate a MUD. Take a look at the MudConnector's "official" reviews. Now, those are insightful! But note only 1 review was written in 2003 and 3 in 2002, so obviously finding such reviewers is problematic at best. Perhaps TMS may consider looking for exceptional volunteer reviewers who can meet the criteria of writing a balanced review (or as balanced as possible).

Hmm, when my MUD is ready to list on TMS, would I want to open up to public reviews? The basher reviews would just make me angry and feel bad, and the rave reviews would just make my ego swell. Rather than losing sleep over a disgruntled newbie's review or slobbering over a review from a player who wants to pat me on the back (for whatever reason), I'm leaning towards not accepting public reviews. Would I like a constructive, balanced and objective review? You bet! But I don't think I'll find it here.

[Aardwolf]

Being the only mud in the current top 5 that accepts reviews, I am probably going to remove that option for Aardwolf too. With few exceptions, of the 30+ reviews that we have almost every one of them is:

1. An unprompted rant from an Aardwolf player on how great the mud is. I cringe just as much as anyone else when I see a 'This mud is the best! Play it!' review.

2. An unprompted flame for Aardwolf not being something it has never claimed to be - any kind of roleplaying environment. If that offends you then look at it another way, we're doing you a service by offering a home to those people you probably don't want on your RP mud anyway.

This week, we even have a couple of reviews in there for another mud that won't accept reviews - the poster clicked on the first link they could find. In summary, after trying it out for 3 months - based on the content so far I don't feel that allowing reviews offers any value to Aardwolf or any value to the readers of this site looking for an objective opinion on what the MUD is about.

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by 1. An unprompted rant from an Aardwolf player on how great the mud is. I cringe just as much as anyone else when I see a 'This mud is the best! Play it!' review. 2. An unprompted flame for Aardwolf not being something it has never claimed to be - any kind of roleplaying environment. If that offends you then look at it another way, we're doing you a service by offering a home to those people you probably don't want on your RP mud anyway.

Exactly. The reviews anymore just aren't worth anything. If there was an honest review site with folks that actually sat down on a MUD and tried it out for the sole purpose of an honest review, it'd be different. That just isn't the case here, in my opinion.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 16 2004,17:47) Yes I am still suspicious. YOU may find your explanations ‘rational and well reasoned’ - I think that you dodge the real issue; Why do certain Muds get bashed more than others?

I dodged it by taking it head on and giving two example explanations? You even responded to them both so I know you didn't miss them. How can you accuse me of dodging the issue when I addressed it directly?

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 16 2004,17:47) The second statement I can agree with. Naturally the larger the playerbase, the more Twinks you get. You might even get more than the usual percentage, because Twinks are attracted to high numbers.

You even agree with one of my explanations for why some muds get bashed more than others, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of dodging the issue? That's ridiculous. I realize you've made it one of your life goals to contradict ANYTHING I post on any forum anywhere, but you should pick your battles better and avoid contradicting yourself so obviously.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 16 2004,17:47) You are actually asserting that other Admins – (or jealous cretins, as you so politely label them) - would post bad reviews about your game, because it has ‘high quality’, and they are jealous of that?

Yes, that is exactly what I am asserting.

Are you so naive that you do not think this happens? Are you really this clueless?

This is a phenomenon that is not unique to Mudding. Microsoft does everything it can to "give a bad review" to linux: even in the area of security! They make up outright lies because nobody has the money to challenge them in the courts. They do this because they are jealous and fearful of what Linux represents to them: a threat.

It is a common business practice because it is common human nature. When people are jealous of something or someone, especially when that thing or person excels at something THEY wish they could do, a very common reaction is to attack or impugn the target of their jealousy.

If you are incapable of understanding this, then you are beyond hope.

Before anyone gets carried away, I am not saying this is the ONLY reason someone might write a bogus, bash review. It is ONE of many reasons why open reviews are worthless.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 16 2004,17:47) So what are you saying here? That other Admins would play your game, find out that it has higher quality and better features than their own, and then post a bad review out of sheer spite and jealousy? That is not only generally insulting and extremely arrogant, it strikes me as positively paranoid.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. However, I did not make it an issue of "my mud" as you seemed to do out of nowhere. I have actually SEEN this exact thing happen when I was a player on both of two rival online RPGs: Admins and players of both games raged war on each other via website reviews.

Wake up. It happens every single day in every single walk of life.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 16 2004,17:47) So, yes, I am still suspicious.

Then I offer two more attempts to allay your suspicions:

1) Obviously Synozeer *knew* there were very good reasons that a mud admin would not want to accept reviews, or he wouldn't have made it an option.

2) Read the "Aardwolf" post at the top of this page. While he makes almost the identical point I already made, perhaps you'll manage a split second of objectivity and let it sink in since the message comes from someone other than me.

Perhaps someday you'll understand.

Until then, you will apparently be content with sniping at others because they don't do things "your way."

[April]

It's simple really.
Games have a right to accept/deny reviews if they wish.
If you really want to say something about somewhere THAT bad, post a thread -- and you'll see, you'll get lots of responses.

The fact is, most people who are really really really itching to write a review about a place (even if they have GOOD points to make) are really really really itching to write a review because they have a bone to pick. I started playing the MUD I am playing now because of a bad review. I went to check out things for myself. I never left. Gosh, I guess it's a matter of personal preference and experience. Go figure.

While I am not adverse to reviews, they are not necessary. Who ever said you could trust a reviewer? Regardless of reviews, people log on and find out for themselves. A few facts, may they be good or bad, about a Mud will do so little to actually sway the opinion of a person who has not had first hand experience, it's laughable.

[Pris]

<troll>
<flame>
<review>
All your muds blow goats.
</review>
</flame>

Pris

[Pris]

Just kidding

</troll>

Pris

[Molly]

There seems to be a general agreement among most Admin on the list - (including myself) -  that about 99% of the reviews in their current form are useless, because they are either:
a) shameless plugs, mostly written either by the Admin themselves, or by players receiving - (or hoping for) - some kind of reward from the Admin for writing them
b) blatant flames, usually from disgruntled ex-players who want to get back at the Game for different reasons.
The b) category can of course be divided into 3 sub-groups: Players who were rightfully punished for being obnoxious or cheating, and are now posting out of sheer spite, players who cannot cope with changes, and players who actually have a valid reason for their discontent  (The Staff isn’t ALWAYS right you know).
According to Threshold there is also a 4th category of the flamers; jealous Admin, who want to bring the competition down. (While these certainly exist, I still believe they are in the minority. Maybe this is wistful thinking on my part, but I’d like to keep at least some illusions about my fellow administrators).

I too think that the reviews are pretty useless. I too very seldom bother to read them or even browse them, and in the few cases I do, just out of curiosity, I usually get my opinion confirmed. I too would be among the first to applaud, if Synozeer decided to get rid of all reviews in their current form.

However: I very rarely play other Muds myself nowadays, because running a Mud is more or less a full time business. I think the same applies to most of the posters on these boards. But obviously not all. At least some of the readers must be players. And even some of the Admin obviously don’t regard the ‘reviews’ as totally worthless.

How can I assert this? Well, one thing you learn as Admin is that players - even very happy players - rarely write reviews or even click vote buttons on their own initiative. (I think that most Admin will agree on this common trait in players). If you want them to do it you have to urge them, either by reminding them on line more or less incessantly, or by giving some kind of reward that makes them think it’s worth the time and trouble.

Now, I have yet to see an Admin admitting to doing this, but at least to me it’s pretty obvious that some do. The inordinately large number of 'praise reviews’ that some Muds get is a sign of this. So, apparently, some Admins think that these reviews are having some kind of positive effect on their mud. Possibly not the review in itself, because anybody with half a mind would pretty soon spot the pattern. The effect they are after is probably seeing the name of their mud displayed on top of the Webpage, as often as possible. Those are the 2 golden rules of all advertisement; Exposure and Repetition. Some experts even believe that ALL exposure is good, meaning that even the bad reviews might have some positive effect.

More interesting is of course how PLAYERS look at the ‘reviews’. Do players even read them, or do they discard them in the same way that most Admins do? Or do they only read reviews of their own Mud? It would be interesting to hear some comments from active players on this, or even to see some statistics, if it is possible to single out certain links on the Website. If the ‘reviews’ ARE getting read in any substantial amount, then they do indeed generate some traffic, and it would explain why Synozeer wants to keep them.

If I were a player out looking for a new Mud to play myself, I would most likely check out some reviews before I decided to log on to try it, even though I think they are basically worthless. And most likely the blatant plugs would leave me totally unaffected, except perhaps that the more there were of them, the less interested I’d probably be. I would read the negative ones with more interest. It is usually not very hard to single out the ones that were written with malicious intent. And even the negative ones would not necessarily make me less inclined to test the Mud.

They might make me think along the lines; Well, apparently this Mud raises some strong emotions, so it must have something of interest, why else would this person be so agitated about being site-banned? Or; This is apparently a Mud that is being worked on actively, or where the Admin is making some efforts to balance out things, why else would this player whine so much about all the changes?

There are of course also cases where bad reviews would make me less inclined to try out the Mud. Basically those would be the ones where players complain a lot about inflexible or arrogant Imms, and/or suppression of free speech. (I always hated control freaks myself; they have a tendency to kill all fun for me). And the third case when I’d be put off would be if I found that all reviews were disallowed.

But then again I am probably not representative for the majority. Rather the opposite, most likely. I seem to irritate a lot of people with a lot of my opinions on these boards. Oh well, I can live with that.

Still, everything isn’t always totally black and white. There are a lot of grey nuances in between. I sincerely wish that we’d one day see some more professional and unbiased reviewers, like the Mudcommandos used to supply. Until that happens, I guess people will just have to use their common sense, and draw their own conclusions from what they read. And hopefully most people are intelligent enough to do that.

[Jaewyn]

Hrm... hasn't this stirred a few people up? In my humble opinion, I also think player reviews are generally a waste of time. The only reviews that MIGHT be worthwhile are those done by a dedicated review team from TMS that hopefully can be objective. (I think Threshold might have mentioned this earlier) Even then, given the time it takes to get a real feel for a MUD sometimes, I doubt the reviewers would be able to dedicate the amount of time required to do an in-depth review of everything in a MUD. Therefore, why bother with a review? Play the MUD and make your own decision.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by It is a common business practice because it is common human nature. When people are jealous of something or someone, especially when that thing or person excels at something THEY wish they could do, a very common reaction is to attack or impugn the target of their jealousy.

While I may not have any real reviews to speak of for my mud, this statement here fits rather appropriately with another gigantic spat I've been involved with in another area. How true can one get? The above statement is pretty much a summary of the entire reason I'm always having to fend the guy off. It's gotten so bad that any little thing I do brings him out of his hole to launch another wave of character assassinations against me.

So I can sympathize with why admins may not want to deal with this. Why should anyone have to put up with getting buried under 50 troll reviews just so the one or 2 people who have something nice to say can say it in a review. Just post it in the forums like the trolls do when they can't review it.

[Kallekins]

I do enjoy reading reviews sometimes, and have in the past tried out muds on the basis of reviews. Obviously biased reviews often give more information about what actually playing the game is like than the website or info sheet, even if it is a flame. For example, a review that reads something like, "The imms forced me to change my char's name and wouldn't let me roleplay it the way I wanted," is a negative comment from the reviewer, but a player who enjoys RP-mandatory would see it in a positive light. You can even read reviews with no real content just to estimate the maturity level of the players.
I expect that there are other players like me who read reviews and go to the muds accordingly, so I don't think you could say that there is zero benefit to allowing reviews.
Owners decide to allow or not allow reviews based on the net benefit. If they don't allow reviews, then it makes me surmise that they don't expect enough well-written balanced reviews to counteract the poorly-written or obviously biased reviews, and that would indicate a generally immature playerbase. But that's just my opinion.
The main problem with the lack of balanced reviews is that if a player has spent enough time on a mud to be able to review it in depth, he must really like the game. I've written one review for the mud I play regularly, and tried to make it balanced, and have thought about reviewing muds I tried and only played for a day or a week, but then didn't think it would be fair to review based only on a newbie's perspective. Nobody is going to spend enough time playing a game that they don't really enjoy to write a fair review of it unless they are getting paid to do so.
But I still like the reviews and think they should stay.