[the_logos]

Originally Posted by You have to realise the fundamental difference between free and commercial Muds in a discussion like this. In a free Mud, nobody makes any profits. Not the Owner, not the Imps, and consequently not the Coders and Builders either – NOBODY. It’s a totally voluntary enterprise, a hobby that we do for FUN, and that requires free contribution from everybody involved. The owners/implementors are usually the ones that put up the largest amount of free work, and they are also the ones that actually have to shell out some money, for the hardware and the server.

But from the volunteer builders point of view, there is no difference. A builder does the same amount of work, assuming the expectations are the same, whether someone else is making money off the game or not. If fun is a sufficient motive for a builder to build for free in a non-commercial game then fun + $20 is even better motivation to build.

Originally Posted by In a commercial Mud, the owner makes a profit

Well, in a commercial mud the owner HOPES to make a profit. Most commercial muds both text and graphical never turn a profit.

Originally Posted by 1 cent – or even 10 cents - per hour, for pretty qualified creative work is and will always remain a lousy payment. They’d be a lot better off taking a job at McDonalds, which I hear is not all that hard to get. I’m not sure what the current wages are, but one thing is for sure; that would allow them to ‘play daoc’ for a considerably longer time, for the same amount of time put down on the work.

Still better than no cents per hour though! All other things equal, $20 is better than $0. (I'm not saying all other things are equal in this case.)

Originally Posted by IIf they leave the Mud on very “unfriendly” terms, it would be quite understandable to me if they no longer want their area to be used there. Fall-outs between owners and staff are not exactly uncommon. But a fact is; they are a lot more likely to occur, if the staff member figures they have been given a bum deal.

Understandable from the builders' perspective but no well-run operation is going to let people just take areas away. That kind of dispute may not be uncommon but it sure as heck is exceedingly rare on professionally (not just in the commercial sense) run muds. Everytime I see one of those "My coder stole my code" posts on TMC I just roll my eyes.

Disgruntled staff members are inevitable in any operation and regardless of whether they are employees or volunteers. When they become a problem you kick their asses out the door, ban their ips, and that's the end of it.

Originally Posted by Also our OLC and our Mob-script engine are so far from stock, that it would be hard to adapt a zone built in 4D to another Mud. Basically it would have to be rewritten from scratch. That leaves us pretty well guarded, as well as the Builder.

This is the part I honestly don't understand. What does the builder need protecting from exactly? It's not like his area is a saleable asset. What does the builder stand to lose that has value, precisely?

Originally Posted by For a commercial Mud, I’d say, that if you cannot afford a fair payment, (for instance if the Mud is just starting up), a fair deal would be some part of the future profit, if and when the project ever leaves the ground.

Why, exactly? Our non-employee builders are happy to work for free, for instance, because they enjoy it. Exactly the same as in a non-commercial mud I'd imagine. Everybody wins as far as I can see, and the builder is getting exactly the same thing in both cases.

[quote= ]
The_Logos:

Two other volunteers-turned producers are developing our fourth game, Lusternia, and are doing so for a year, for free. We own all their work. If they quit, they get nothing. On the other hand, once the game opens next summer, they get employment, a big percentage of the profits, and ownership. So are they dumb for having done free work for us (all of which we own) for years in some cases? Did we prey on them? They sure don't think so.

Originally Posted by BUT – how many of the Builders out there get the same good deal? – even the good, talented hardworking Builders? One question of interest, though, matt. You are talking about Coders here, aren’t you? Or do Builders get the same deal from you for putting down the same amount of work on the project?

Well, we don't have any dedicated builders on staff. We're not a big enough company for it to really be worthwhile particularly considering our games are not focused on PvE gameplay. Plus, there are a lot of quality builders willing to work for free because they enjoy it. There are a lot less quality coders willing to work for free. And as an aside, there are even fewer quality graphical artists or UI experts willing to work for free which is, in my opinion, why the open source movement so consistently fails to produce visually-pleasing software useable by the average person.

On Lusternia, one of the guys is purely a scripter (technically it's scripting since it's using our interpreted Rapture language. It's a powerful enough language that we've written other scripting languages in it though.) and the other does all the design, building, and some scripting (obviously. Designers who can't script are called unemployed.)

However, if we had two positions open: full-time coder and full-time builder, there is no way the builder would be offered close to what the coder makes. How much they work isn't really the issue. How much their work is worth is the issue, and the coder's is worth more. Just the way it is. Similarly, level designers make far less than coders on a graphical mud. Coding takes much more skill, experience, and education to do at a professional level than building on a text mud does.

I'll give you a real-world example. I'm negotiating some positions right now for a graphical project. The lead client programmer will make between 130k and 150k/year plus benefits and royalties. Lead level designer, on the other hand, is probably looking at the 70-80k range with benefits.

And frankly, there are more specialized skills involved with graphical level design than with text mud area building. Lots of people with absolutely no experience or formal training can be quite good builders as soon as they learn to use the building tools. Heck, there ISN'T any such thing as formal training for mud building. Hand a non-coder a compiler and text editor though and he's just going to sit there looking at it blankly.
--matt

[Iluvatar]

As a builder who hires volunteer builders like most of you, I’m somewhat amazed by the perception that ‘good builders grow on trees.’ That, to me, is tantamount to lumping all writers into a generic mass and randomly selecting Salvatore or Tolkien or Burroughs as just competent grammaticists who got lucky. Perhaps I live in a fairytale world where I presume the senior managers I respect here actually have high standards for zonal creations used within their worlds. Consistency, congruity, content, theme, imagination, timing and a fair amount of zeal for the art builders have chosen to pursue has to count for something. I agree only the mechanics are learned through professional education but I submit that the nuance and flavor of the DnD or Sword and Sorcery or Time Warping environment creation is based on long hours of study and interaction via many different media. ‘Doom’ style writers abound and do seem to grow on trees, or perhaps under them depending on your viewpoint, but the ones who shine are truly rare yet they suffer the same disdain for ability and value as the 12 year old ‘Doom’ writer. I can understand this perception from the elitist coder world of graphical MUs that thrive on eye candy to the PlayStation addicted masses but not from successful text MUs.

To digress to the original announcement that started this, “heck yah,” 20 bucks is a good deal in an environment that so often treats builders as third class citizens in a coders world. I have one builder who can cough up an easy 5 zones per week and would love the deal. I strongly applaud KaVir for posting a caution note to accepting the offer though for the same reasons he stated and would advise the builder I know to be very careful before jumping into an agreement like that.

Quote: the_logos

This is the part I honestly don’t understand. What does a builder need protecting from exactly? It’s not like his idea is a saleable asset. What does a builder stand to lose that has value, precisely?

Coming from someone I’ve seen high on the pedestal spouting the sanctity of intellectual property, I’m considering this is your comment intended to draw this thread out to another 50 pages of the_logos vs the world in intellectual debate. Perhaps a short “whatif” might nip your confusion in the bud. What if, Salvatore just happened to take 20 bucks to write Menzoberranzen for a MU that bought his copyright when he was just 18 and ignorant of the true hack and slash ways of the world? A good zone is the child of a good author and as a parent they never give up their children.

[Hephos]

quoting illuvatar

Originally Posted by I’m somewhat amazed by the perception that ‘good builders grow on trees.’

Perhaps you misunderstood (or i wrote it badly) but what i meant was COMPARED to good coders, good builders grow on trees

In fact, there are hundereds of potential good builders all over the place that is not introduced to the ways of building. But if they got introduced and someone teached them, they would be productive(creative) in a matter of hours/days. It is not the same with coders.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Iluvatar @ Aug. 30 2003,08:42) Coming from someone I’ve seen high on the pedestal spouting the sanctity of intellectual property, I’m considering this is your comment intended to draw this thread out to another 50 pages of the_logos vs the world in intellectual debate.  Perhaps a short “whatif” might nip your confusion in the bud.  What if, Salvatore just happened to take 20 bucks to write Menzoberranzen for a MU that bought his copyright when he was just 18 and ignorant of the true hack and slash ways of the world?  A good zone is the child of a good author and as a parent they never give up their children.

I fully support the sanctity of intellectual property just as I fully support an author's right to sell it or give it away to Hephos' mud.

If you seriously think all these builders running around writing areas are going to compromise future careers as best-selling authors, put down the pipe. ####, I challenge you to find a single successful professional author whose career has ever been hampered by giving away -mud areas- (MUD AREAS for gods sake. We're not talking about the next Great American Novel being given away or sold for $20. I mean come on, let's maintain some sort of reasonable perspective. I'm hardly saying anything that should be controversial.)

--matt

[Molly]

Hephos:

Originally Posted by Anyone, (almost) can become a decent builder within a few days (especially with a good teacher and a good building tool). It's not like the standard olc of diku derivates is hard to learn. … Compared to good coders, decent builders are actually growing off the trees.

If decent Builders grow on trees, where do those trees grow? And how come so many muds are screaming for Builders and/or have such crappy zones?

Anyone, who believes that being a good Builder is mainly a question of learning OLC, is just showing their total ignorance about what quality building entails. Sure, any twelve-year-old kid can learn to use OLC within a few days, and even whip out a crappy zone, provided they got the patience for it. Does that make them a quality – or even a ‘decent’ - Builder? Not any more than knowing how to work with a word-processor makes anyone a good author.

Building is an art form of its own, which more resembles writing the synopsis for a film than a novel. Because, even without graphics, a zone is dynamic and interactive and springs to full life first when it gets played, something that has to be considered when building. Creating a quality zone entails both research and creativity, thinking out and putting into words the background story, plots, environment, population, and all other aspects of your world, all of which must be logical and consistent, within the laws of nature and society of the Mud you work on. A Quality zone is usually entertaining, and has flavour, atmosphere, suspense, surprises, sometimes humour. Other aspects that need to be considered are challenge versus playability, game balance, scripts, quests, puzzles, how to utilise all the options the code offers – and how to invent new engines if the existing game mechanics aren’t up to your ideas. Good zones are often the result of close cooperation between Builders and Coders, even if an amazing amount of things can be done with scripts.

Talking about OLC in connection with the subject of quality zones is next-to an insult.

The_logos 1:

Originally Posted by Our non-employee builders are happy to work for free, for instance, because they enjoy it. … However, if we had two positions open: full-time coder and full-time builder, there is no way the builder would be offered close to what the coder makes. How much they work isn't really the issue. How much their work is worth is the issue, and the coder's is worth more. … What does a builder need protecting from exactly? It’s not like his idea is a saleable asset. What does a builder stand to lose that has value, precisely?

Are your ‘happy’ Builders aware of how low you value their work and their ideas on public discussion boards?

The_logos 2:

Originally Posted by Disgruntled staff members are inevitable in any operation and regardless of whether they are employees or volunteers. When they become a problem you kick their asses out the door, ban their ips, and that's the end of it.

I think this statement speaks for itself. With an attitude like that, no wonder disgruntled staff members are ‘inevitable’ in your operation. It never once entered your mind that the fault might lie with the Mud Owner and not with the staff member, right?

Possibly  the main problem with arrogant people like you is, that you never even encountered a quality Builder. Probably because no quality Builder would even consider working on a Mud run by arrogant people like you. And if they did, they would probably turn into disgruntled staff members pretty soon, and you’d ‘kick their asses out the door, ban their ips, and that's the end of it.’

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by If decent Builders grow on trees, where do those trees grow? And how come so many muds are screaming for Builders and/or have such crappy zones?

Most muds are screaming for builders because while builders are willing to work for free they don't want to work somewhere where their efforts are hamstrung by "that idiot running the place". Unfortunately, far too many muds fit into that scenario very well.

Originally Posted by Anyone, who believes that being a good Builder is mainly a question of learning OLC, is just showing their total ignorance about what quality building entails. Sure, any twelve-year-old kid can learn to use OLC within a few days, and even whip out a crappy zone, provided they got the patience for it. Does that make them a quality – or even a ‘decent’ - Builder? Not any more than knowing how to work with a word-processor makes anyone a good author.

It's not just a question of just knowing OLC but for many people it IS a question of simply having to learn OLC to put their existing imagination, writing skills, and understanding of how players experience text muds to work.

Molly, there's no need to get defensive. Nobody is suggesting that builders lack skills. But there's no arguing with the fact that not things require the same amount of experience, knowledge, and skill to do. There's also no arguing with the fact that some activities are worth more than others. Coding, for instance, is just worth more than building. You can rail against it but it doesn't change the fact.

Originally Posted by Are your ‘happy’ Builders aware of how low you value their work and their ideas on public discussion boards?

I most certainly value our Builders, consider most of them my friends and would consider them so regardless of whether they continued building or not. I'm dropping a few thousand dollars on a bunch of rooms for us in Vegas next month. Did the same last year. Got a big condo in Beaver Creek, Colorado for us the year before. (Well, not just builders, but immortal volunteers and staff generally.) I've given them jobs, helped one get financing for a new house, helped them start their own entreprenurial ventures, bought them Amazon certificates, and more.

Of course, those bonuses are not why they build for us. They build because they enjoy it which, presumably, is the reason you also build (you're not getting paid if I recall). The hotel rooms and everything else is just a little extra something on top of that.

Really, builders want, I think, three main things:
1. Players to appreciate their work. Empty muds are not gratifying to build for for most people.
2. Stability. They want to know their work isn't going to go to waste when the mud shuts down tomorrow.
3. Support. They want tools and permissions that allow them to create as freely as possible.

You attract and keep good builders by providing those. Anything on top of that only helps. We give them all three, in spades, plus the little extras, which is probably why we can turn down 95% of people who apply to build.

[quote= ]
The_logos 2:

Disgruntled staff members are inevitable in any operation and regardless of whether they are employees or volunteers. When they become a problem you kick their asses out the door, ban their ips, and that's the end of it.

Originally Posted by I think this statement speaks for itself. With an attitude like that, no wonder disgruntled staff members are ‘inevitable’ in your operation. It never once entered your mind that the fault might lie with the Mud Owner and not with the staff member, right?

Now Molly, I know you're not dumb. I know you cannot possibly believe that it's possible to maintain 100% of relationships (in anything) 100% of the time. Over half of marriages in this country break up. No company manages 0 turnover. People leave the Army. People leave muds.

It's not really about fault. I mean, of course it's the mud owner's fault sometimes but how does that impact on what I said? If a staff member is disgruntled and causing problems and doesn't seem likely to stop, and you as the mud owner find out it's your problem, what do you do, say "Oh, well, it's my fault he's acting this way so I'll just continue to let him." No. You kick him out and hope you can do better next time. The good of the mud must come before the good of any single volunteer, employee, or player.

Originally Posted by Possibly  the main problem with arrogant people like you is, that you never even encountered a quality Builder. Probably because no quality Builder would even consider working on a Mud run by arrogant people like you. And if they did, they would probably turn into disgruntled staff members pretty soon, and you’d ‘kick their asses out the door, ban their ips, and that's the end of it.'

Well, if you define "quality builder" as "someone who will not work with Matt" then I have never worked with a quality builder, by definition.

On the other hand, considering we do more for our builders than virtually all muds do (and yes, it's because we're commercial but that doesn't change the fact that we do) it's probably unsurprising that in Achaea's 6 year history it has had exactly one builder leave in a fit of disgruntlement. Others have been asked to leave and others drift away after getting bored of course but that's a pretty good record. I strongly suspect those team vacations we take helps though I'm not able to quantify it.

Why don't you tell me what you would do besides kick him out and ban him in this real situation:
Last year right after we got back from our group vacation I found out that our head builder (who had undergone a really drastic personality change after a nasty divorce. He decided he was bisexual suddenly, etc) was playing with himself on webcams while members of his religious Order (he was a God), including minors, watched.

The solution was obvious: Kick his ass out and ban him. We tried being nice and letting him have his old mortal back to log in with now and then but too many players knew who he was as a mortal and it made them uncomfortable to have him around. So we banned him from his old character as well.

Do I feel any regret over kicking his ass out and banning his IP? Not even a smidgen. I just regret he made it necessary. Perhaps you would have kept him on but I sure hope not.

--matt

[Lanthum]

the_logos:

Originally Posted by Of course, those bonuses are not why they build for us. They build because they enjoy it which ...

You hope that is why.  I wish I could remember where I read the survey, but about 3-4 years ago a study was done within Fortune 500 companies, and it was found that "Benefits" was the #1 reason why disgruntled employees stuck around a job they didn't really like.

the_logos:

Originally Posted by I know you cannot possibly believe that it's possible to maintain 100% of relationships (in anything) 100% of the time.

I don't believe that is what Molly meant.  When I read your posts (and I suspect when others do as well), your attitude towards builders seems flippant.  "Coders are better, Builders are just regular people" is what it seems your saying.  Now don't go quote me quoting you, quoting me ... I know you didn't say that word for word, but that seems your attitude.  The Fact is good builders usually don't make good coders, and good coders usually don't make good builders.  They have different sets of qualities, which make them good at different things.  And a MUD wouldn't exist without both.  There are many MUDs that have great machnics and horrible areas, or vice versa.  So a callus, flippant attitude towards either seems dangerous.

As for the horrific situation you described the_logos, I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion up until then.  The discussion was more about disgruntled builders and situations that could possibly be handled or discussed.  Because, in a situation like that, I would think you would want to remove his/her areas since just seeing the name of the person could invoke further problems/harm.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by The Fact is good builders usually don't make good coders, and good coders usually don't make good builders.  They have different sets of qualities, which make them good at different things.  And a MUD wouldn't exist without both.

Well still coders work are more valuable (and hard to come by). If you are satisfied with a stock codebase, patched up with snippets, of course you can manage with a bad coder.

However, if you want a procifient coder, the chances are that you will NEVER find one working for a free mud (that is not already taken). The chances that you will find an exceptionally great builder is infinitly much higher.

Of course the coder is then more valuable.

We (I) have never said that builders works are not appreciated. Evidently a mud with only great coders are equally bad (or even worse) than a stock code with amazing zones.

BUT it is much easier to find the builders. You can generally find them roaming all over the net. If you want a great coder you must normally look around yourself in rl for friends, atleast if you want one that you can also trust.

This does not mean that I think it is easy to find great builders. During the years we have had thousands come by our game and only a handful have been accepted and granted staff status and built tenfolds of zones. We have over 20.000 rooms today, and it is neither stock or bad quality.

Finding a great quality builder is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and finding the equally great coder is like finding the needle in 10 haystacks. Not only does the coder need more hardtocomeby skill, you need to have a deep trust for him/her too before you let him/her loose in your code. You can hand over your building tools to just about anyone, but you can't let anyone get your game's source.

Emil Nilimaa
www.sharune.com
www.mythicscape.com

[Molly]

Yes, I work for free.
BUT - I work for free in a Mud that values and respects my work, and the work of all Builders.

I would never even dream of working for peanut money – or even somewhat bigger money - in a place where the owner publicly states that the work of Builders isn’t worth a tenth of the work of Coders.

And getting an occasional patronising pat on the head or a lollipop in the form of a free weekend in Vegas once a year wouldn’t help either.
Rather the opposite.

But I guess a person who can post something like:  

Originally Posted by I'd say whatever a builder agrees ahead of time to is fair.

   would never realise the difference.
You know, that remark rather reminds me of the sleazy salesmen, who sell unsuspecting and naive people things they don’t really want or need, and then say ‘Well, you didn’t read the fine print’ when their targets try to cancel the contract.

Like Iluvatar, I also remember you climbing on a very high horse in a thread about ‘intellectual property’ some while back. But obviously ‘intellectual property‘ only means something to you, if it also has an established commercial value - to quote yourself again; ‘is a saleable asset’.

Yet another of your cute quotes in this thread is this one:

Originally Posted by Heck, there ISN'T any such thing as formal training for mud building.

Yeah, right, could that possibly be because talent, imagination, ingenuity and creativity cannot really be trained? And in case you never realised, these are not qualities that everybody possesses.

I am actually going to climb out on a limb here, and state that a Mud coder that doesn't possess a certain amount of these qualities too will never become a really 'great' coder, however many years he spends on formal training in using his tools.

I do however actually agree on your three points about what generally attracts Builders. It’s encouraging to see that there are at least SOME things we can agree on. Personally I would of course have added a fourth point to your three:

4. Respect. Builders want a Mud owner that respects their work for what it is worth, both in the Mud and publicly, on boards like this one.

Finally, I totally fail see how the case of one of your staff members going paedophile has got ANYTHING to do with the present discussion about Builders getting respect for and retaining the copyright to their work.
Naturally I’d kick out and ban a moron like that too. Who wouldn’t? Moreover, I would have reported him to the Police and the Net Authorities. And I wouldn’t even have dreamt of even THINKING of

Originally Posted by being nice and letting him have his old mortal back to log in with now and then

I’d kick that mort out faster than you could say siteban, and not wait for the other players to complain about it.
But then again, my players don’t pay me to play.

[Hephos]

Quoting molly

Originally Posted by in a place where the owner publicly states that the work of Builders isn’t worth a tenth of the work of Coders

So you disagree there? You seriously think the average muds can get a great coder as easily as a great builder?

Now, this is based on that builders are 10 times easier (grasping a number from thin air) to come by than coders. And this is evidently the case (looking at most muds and how they are coded, and how many posts there are about needing coders).

Lets say a coder was easier to find than a builder. Of course i would personally value the builders work more.

Now, at Sharune, we have plenty of proficient coders, what we need are builders. At the moment, we value builders much more than coders. Thats one reason to why we want to show them that we value their work a lot, and give them both a contract to have credits, and a handful of dollars. If I could I would gladly pay them 200/zone. Perhaps in the future we will be able to do that too...

Our coders sign a contract that gives them nothing, but credits and the pleasure to code and be part of our team.

So I (we) personally don't value coders more than builders, since we have a great deal of coders available.

But speaking generally, of course you have to understand that people value the coders more, since they are much harder to find.

Value is based on demand and availability...

And you disagree with this Molly?

[Molly]

Hephos:

Originally Posted by Value is based on demand and availability... And you disagree with this Molly?

Value is also based on merit and quality.

You disagree with this, Hephos?

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Aug. 31 2003,09:45) Hephos: Originally Posted by Value is based on demand and availability... And you disagree with this Molly? Value is also based on merit and quality. You disagree with this, Hephos?

Of course not.

But now we were comparing two people with same merit and same quality, just in different proffessions. Where one of them is from a proffession where there is much more demand and a lot less people available.

[Molly]

Oh well…
I figure we could hash this back and forth for weeks, without ever agreeing on anything, except for the fact that we disagree.

But I am not about to do that. I’ve made my points of view clear, and I am not about to repeat them ad nauseam.
So. I propose that we instead discuss the topic that the_logos, brought into this discussion, the one about the paedophile on his mud.

Now, I’ll admit that my instinctive gut reaction to this was to ignore the subject, since I suspected that he brought the incident up mainly to divert our intention from the original subject of this thread – namely Builders’ right.

But then I read his post again.

And, if his intention really was to divert the attention – well, he succeeded, at least as far as I am concerned. Compared to the scenario he paints, ‘Builders’ Rights’ suddenly seems rather petty.

I mean, take a closer look at what the guy actually is saying:

Here is a Mud, and not a small stock Mud run by some immature teenager either. It’s one of the big, commercial Muds, in fact the one that tops the voting list of this site, and that he himself likes to refer to as ‘the # 1 Mud on the net’.

Now, this owner of this big, commercial Mud, with hundreds of players, discovers that one of his top staff members is a sicko, who likes to ‘play with himself’ in front of a web camera before an audience of some of the Mud’s players, some of which by his own admission are minors. Apparently there is some hard evidence about it too, judging from the details he provided. So what does he do about the situation?

Does he report the pervert to the Police or the Net Abuse authorities? Judging from his own story - no he doesn’t.

Does he warn his players about the pervert (considering that the latter most likely already has established a network, has access to players’ e-mail addresses, etc)? Again, judging again from his own story – no he doesn’t.

His only action, as it seems, is to remove the pervert from his imm position, while – again by his own admission – trying to be ‘nice and letting him have his old mortal back to log in with now and then’. Leaving him free to hunt down some more prey to his sick game. Not until some of the players protest, because they are feeling ‘uncomfortable to have him around’ does he finally kick this sicko out of his game.

And that is not all. From what it sounds like, he is expecting applauds from the audience – us – for the way he is handling the situation too. Just look at the way he is taunting me: ‘Perhaps you would have kept him on but I sure hope not.’

So, who was he trying to be ‘nice’ to here? His players, the paedophile, or his own wallet?

Again, this is a person who frequently stresses how  ‘professional’ his operation is run. In Swedish there is another meaning of the word ‘professional’, but let’s not get into this now.

Maybe this is a knee-jerk reflex on my part, but considering the details of his story, I believe my reflex is understandable. Paedophilia is something I really hate profoundly.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by You hope that is why. I wish I could remember where I read the survey, but about 3-4 years ago a study was done within Fortune 500 companies, and it was found that "Benefits" was the #1 reason why disgruntled employees stuck around a job they didn't really like.

Indeed, but being your average Fortune 500 company employee is a miserable soul-sucking job. Being a builder on Achaea generally (but not always) involves getting to roleplay one of a handful of Gods. I mean, it's fun! No required hours, no forms to fill out, etc.

Originally Posted by As for the horrific situation you described the_logos, I don't think that has anything to do with the discussion up until then. The discussion was more about disgruntled builders and situations that could possibly be handled or discussed. Because, in a situation like that, I would think you would want to remove his/her areas since just seeing the name of the person could invoke further problems/harm.

I'm not sure how disgruntled builders can cause problems for a decently-run mud. Any trouble they can cause is easily protected against. I also don't really see why one would disrupt one's world by removing an area from it. Imagine Wisconsin suddenly disappearing from the US. Highly distrubing to nearby residents no doubt! I suppose it's understandable if you're running a non-coherent world, but if you've got a world that's attempting some sort of conceptual coherence then removing an area is just not an option this side of a major roleplaying event.

From my point of view as a mud player too (not that I claim my player POV represents anyone but me), I wouldn't like to see treasured areas removed.

--matt

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Aug. 31 2003,17:25) Oh well… I figure we could hash this back and forth for weeks, without ever agreeing on anything, except for the fact that we disagree.

You're free to disagree. I'm not really giving you an opinion though. I'm just pointing out what the reality of the situation is, and the reality is that coders get paid more than writers because they are worth more to the people doing the paying. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit well with you but it's your hangup, not mine.

The rest of your post isn't going to be dignified with a public response.

--matt

[visko]

Some of this discussion parallels the old war between yui and angelbob about which is better, c or c++...

Yui took the position that 50 mediocre programmers working on the same project in C++ (which is apparently easier to learn and use...) would, given similar work days, produce a lot more viable code than 1 brilliant C++ or C programmer working equivalent hours (to one of the mediocre programmers, assumedly).

The parallel is builders v. coders for MUDs.  Now, my friends and I have always made a distinction with regards to coding: patch monkeys, and generally people who add in the freely distributedcode of others, add color options to their channels, and then use specslay or other kid-toys to increase the "variety of their imm powers" don't count as coders.  They just dont.

That being said, there aren't a whole lot of coders out there.  I'm not going to get into the argument of who is more/less motivated on average, builders or coders; for now lets assume that the interest and motivation is similar enough not to be discussed.

If I hire 20 13-year-olds, set them on a separate port, give them a few nifty toys on the main site with their mortals, and tell them to go build, chances are I'll have 10-20 crappy but workable areas in the same time as I would have had 1 really good area from 1 really good builder who I managed to coerce into building for me.  Possibly less time; crappy areas don't exactly take months to kick out.

I take those 20 areas, rotate the builders, let them all play with each others' areas and tell them that they all get "in-game benefits" from making the areas acceptable for the pbase....

And in a slightly longer period of time than it takes a good builder to create 1 or 2 areas, I have 20 usable ones.

I'm not a fan of quantity over quality normally.  But in a situation where it's obvious that you can mass-produce mediocrity and approximate good work, why not?  (I wouldn't PAY for it most likely, but I'd figure out something the builders consider worthwhile.)  Hephos is just working a numbers game at the moment; grab 2000 builders, get 1 in 200 areas usable for your MUD, and you have 10 new areas lickety split.  Plus, other areas from the pool that seem to have potential can get emails back to their creators saying keep up the good work, and you will eventually get money too.

I wouldn't do it.  I'm not sure I'm completely opposed to it though; especially for a commercial enterprise, it sounds like a smart way of doing things.  The NDA and retention of copyright needs to be played with more, from what I've seen, but the rest of the idea is fine.

Besides.  Hephos's "ethical ambiguities" strike me as relatively minor when compared with current major businesses we're reading about in the news lately.

-Visko

Quick edit:

P.S. Crappy coders crash things, and unless you're INCREDIBLY lucky and have free unlimited hosting, or a nice fat checkbook, you probably don't have a separate development port (although you should, all of you out there.) Much more painful things happen when you crash MUDs as opposed to just putting in a bunch of idiotic areas with typos.

[Fharron]

Logos,

‘I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation, and the reality is that programmers get paid more than writers do because they are worth more to the people paying their respective services.’

The reality of the current situation, regarding the payment offered to builders and programmers, is irrelevant to the stance you are taking. One could easily say that men are still paid more in the workplace and that employers paying for their services are justified in doing so, based upon traditionally supported and conventionally accepted salary calculations.

The reality of the current salary climate may be that male employees are allocated higher monetary awards and in some cases esteem than their female counterparts. However, this does not necessarily support the illogical deduction that one of them is of greater value to an organisation than the other party. It is organisations that think in this limited manner that are frequently suprised when their vital employess hand in their resignations, after being head-hunted by a more astute company.

If we wish to employ a broader-based comparison with another field of construction why not refer to the reality of house building. A MUD is after all a collection of built areas and components for the use and amusement of people. And in this appeal to reality, who is paid the highest salary in the development of a house, the constructor of the house’s shell (the programmer), the interior designer that furnishes the house (the builder), or the architect (the game designer).

Arguments centred upon our current conception of reality are often very poor arguments, just because it ‘currently is so’ does not entail that ‘it will be also be so tomorrow’. The world is constantly changing and with it our conception reality, the construction industry framework might well become the accepted game-design framework of tomorrow. After all programming involves a language and recent advances have created translators for a number spoken languages, how long will it be before we have Online Code-creating tools with simple interfaces? And if such tools are developed what commodity will command the highest salaries? I dare say it will be creativity.

In the case of a specific scenario, such as graphical games, it may be safe to say at the outset that programmers warrant a higher salary. When dealing with the rendered eye candy and tile based approach of graphical building tools the basic skill requirements of a builder are relatively low. Even the creation of original actors is based around a small collection of tools that are quickly mastered in relation to the skills required to develop the supporting systems infrastructure.

However, I am certainly not saying that all graphical builders are created equal and that mastering the technical requirements of graphical building tools is all that is involved. To use a metaphor, two woodcarvers could be taught how to use the tools involved in their craft. The first, after many hours of failed inspiration could produce a very tidy pile of shavings and wood chips. The second, after a similar length of time but with the creative muse seated upon his/her shoulders, could produce a veritable work of art.

Mastering the tools used in a piece of work is only one of the aspects used in determining the worth and value of a crafter. As Molly, in my opinion rightly pointed out, the difference between a great programmer and a competent programmer is often their ability to write creative code. By this I mean code that takes the program in novel new directions and squeezes every ounce out of the resources available to them. It is one thing to modify an existing function and give it minor twist, it is another thing entirely to write function that opens up a new and previously unexplored dimension to the activity of gaming.

Viewing a working system in one game and replicating it another is the work of a competent programmer. A great programmer would simply view the working system as a source of inspiration, recognising its contents, its limitations, and its relation to other functions employed elsewhere, similar or otherwise. Then, by using their creativity, they would improve upon the general idea and code a fresh version – propelling the idea forward through a number of evolutionary or revolutionary phases.

The same is true for builders and in the case of textual games this value multiplier is of tenfold importance. Not only do they have to fabricate zones, without access to preformatted tiles and rendered textures they have to create every visual elements of each room they build virtually from scratch. It is creativity that defines the difference between a great builder and a competent builder, not the mundane mastery of tools.

Having visited more than my fair share of MUDS the general quality of building IS pitifully low. Grammatical errors, spelling errors, descriptions with engagement factors reminiscent of watching paint dry, historical inaccuracies (a cuirass is a back and breastplate it never covered arm slots), replicated rooms (either direct copies or shallow semantic facsimiles), objects without extra descriptions, rooms without any extra descriptions. Object placements and obstacle settings that meet with gaming stipulations/agendas but have no sense of realism or logic, and above all else a distinct lack of thematic or creative originality (I’m new here where is the nearest goblin village/cavern). I could go on, I haven’t even mentioned scripting, but it is relatively safe to state that GOOD builders are few and far between.

The misconception relating to the number of GOOD builders available commonly arises from the lack of building knowledge exhibited by those hiring. One need only place a zone built by a GOOD builder into a game to highlight the difference and quality such a person includes in their work. Most employers believe they are merely looking for a needle in a haystack when attempting to attract a GOOD builder. However, most employers have never seen the needle in question because they are so rare. Only when they are confronted by the work of a GOOD builder do they finally realise what they have been mistakenly calling good work and what it was they where really looking for all along.

The intrinsic worth of a GOOD builder is every bit the equal of GOOD programmers. In relation to their importance to a game the two positions are also equally important. A GOOD builder involved with a poorly coded project will have few options available to maximise their creativity. A GOOD programmer will be able to code a great project but to the players it will appear sterile, disenchanting, and possibly unfinished - if it has not be furnished by a GOOD builder.

Programmers provide builders with the tools their creativity needs to glorify the finished project. Neither a builder nor a programmer can create an engaging and enjoyable end product by themselves, unless an individual is highly skilled in both areas. The work of one is required by and exemplified by the other, it is a symbiotic relationship and as a direct consequence each party must be accorded equal value. To allocate either party less than equal value is to be guilty of naivety and gross indifference to their particular talents and contributions to the creation of a GOOD game.

On a more specific note I would be interested to hear how you define the worth of contributors to the franchise operations of iron realms Entertainment, such as Imperian.

Being that the engine used is - or one would realistically assume - already developed to a high degree of completion, would a programmer involved in such a project be accorded a lesser value than the one attributed to its builders?

Are we to assume that the code changes a franchise project requires are extensive enough to warrant the allocation of equal billing to programmers involved with such projects?

And if so what would be the point of starting out with the limitations of the Raptor Engine? Other than having something to strip down to its core and virtually rebuild.

If the programmers of such a franchise are merely modifying an existing game engine then surely they have little value. In this situation the builders are directly responsible for generating the diversity required to distance the franchise from its parent game, along with the simple thematic code changes made by the programmers. Wouldn’t the builders be of greater worth to such an enterprise?

-------------------------------------------
Never mind the width feel the quality

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (visko @ Sep. 27 2003,12:03) Some of this discussion parallels the old war between yui and angelbob about which is better, c or c++... Yui took the position that 50 mediocre programmers working on the same project in C++ (which is apparently easier to learn and use...) would, given similar work days, produce a lot more viable code than 1 brilliant C++ or C programmer working equivalent hours (to one of the mediocre programmers, assumedly).

I don't think I took that position =).

Usually I prefer quality over quantity of coders. I find that the brilliant workers can do far better work in far less time for far less money overall than an army of mediocre workers However with proper guidance your mediocre workers could turn into brilliant workers, so it pays to nurture a few of the more promising ones =).

[visko]

Hrmf. Will I didn't check archives and my memory isn't as closely resembling a steel trap as it used to...

Apologies if I misquoted you or mistook you for someone else.

-Visko

[visko]

Fharron, your points are interesting, but allow me to nit-pick for a second...

"What may happen in the future" is something to think about wistfully and with much eagerness, but it doesn't translate into "what is available right now." Until the magic utility that translates the ideas in my mind into code becomes reality, I'm still stuck with the mundane task of ripping out 30k lines of Rom source and attacking a completely new codebase with my limited knowledge of C and a lot of motivation. (Redoing 30k lines of code isn't a task engaged lightly; there is a LOT of work involved, not only with writing, but thinking about multiple complex infrastructures and where they touch, merge, and rely upon one another).

I recognize that a lot of the process involved with building follows the same path as programming: get an idea, work out how the flow should proceed, make a tentative working model, and then fill it out where necessary. I also admit to being at best a mediocre builder; I was more interested in figuring out how to give MOBs an unfair advantage using building tools, and less interested in plot, characters, and room descriptions. That being said, I claim credit for some of the best areas on my previous attempt at a MUD; everyone else was less interested and much less skilled.

It has been my personal experience that neither good programmers or good builders exist in wide abundance within the community at this point. (Then again, there aren't a whole lot of good players to go around anymore either.) However, programmers have a slight advantage over builders in mantality: they're divas about the quality of their code, rather than its function. In this, they are (sometimes, more often than builders, perhaps?) more approachable with an interesting idea put forth by administration or pbase. Coders don't necessarily care if they're implementing a grapple skill or redesigning equipment; they care that the code is tidy, expandable, efficient, and most importantly, syntactically the way they want it.

Builders, on the other hand, rely completely on creativity for their work. A builder doesn't usually build an area someone else talked about; they build THEIR area, the one they want that integrates into the MUD in a way that they understand. This, you have to admit, is less of a flexible attitude in regards to the overall development of the game than a coder who is given an interesting idea and makes it part of the overall engine.

Also - your scenario about a MUD in need less of code and more of areas is interesting, and something that I specifically may encounter in a few years (after the code gets written). It seems to me that this is an unusual event; usually players want a million new skills/classes/races/clan benefits, and try to work within the current world's state searching for advantages in the game no one's seen before.

Disclaimer: I'm a PKer from PK-oriented Muds. I don't know how RPers work; they're a mystery to me. Perhaps they want lots of new areas to explore and interact with, but that's out of the scope of my experience.

If tomorrow I found a beautiful 20-something blonde who had motivation and good building capabilities, I'd probably reconsider my current ban on emotionally-charged relationships That being said, I have more of a chance with finding a beautiful blonde 20-something programmer. So I'll put forth more effort and care towards that group.

-Visko

The set of things creatable by a builder is a vector space spanned by a finite set (the OLC tools). This set can be very large, even infinite, but still linearly dependant upon the available tools.

The set of things a coder can create is, by comparison, almost infinite and if you were to enumerate a set of tools that spans it, it would be a mind boggling huge set of tools. Also, the coder can add new tools to the spanning set of what builders are cabable of. Builders cannot.

Of course a building guru is a much bigger asset than a mediocre coder.

To illustrate the idea of linear dependance, if all the builders in the world collaborated for 1000 years on a DIKU mud, it would still be beyond their power to create a graphical MUD. But 1 coder could do this in several months to a couple years.

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Aug. 28 2003,00:35) Now it seems this is extended to being second rate serfs for commercial muds too. I bet people who start commercial Muds don't expect their coders to work for 2 cents an hour and give up all right to their work on top of that. Or?

Originally Posted by More likely bias against commercial guys who prey on the work of others.

Is securing the future of your mud against the possibility that a builder goes nuts and decides to pull all their work from it, using copyright as leverage 'preying' on the work of others?

Is this 'preying', if he's preventing a situation where large portions of his world could disappear due to a disagreement between staff?

You say that builders get a lousy deal in all muds, which they do. The reason for this is skill based.

Good building requires good english skills and imagination. Roughly 30% of all mud players have this at the level of which I'd hire them, if it were up to me.

Good coding requires good coding knowledge, english skills, imagination, and experience. Good coding knowledge is something which is worth a lot of money in the real world, especially combined with experience.

Builders do provide a vital contribution to muds, but unless the mud involved is just another crappy stock dikurivative a coders work is more important as it underlies what a builder does.

I won't provide an analogy for this, as it'll probably be ultimately flawed and used as a counter argument for the rest of this thread. To not recognise that coding labor requires higher skill than building IMO, is really quite stupid.

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by Yes, I work for free. BUT - I work for free in a Mud that values and respects my work, and the work of all Builders. I would never even dream of working for peanut money – or even somewhat bigger money - in a place where the owner publicly states that the work of Builders isn’t worth a tenth of the work of Coders.

Molly, in this world there exist shades of grey.  Not everything is yes, or no. By saying that coders are more valuable than builders, he is not saying that builders are worthless.  Welcome to Logic 101.

Matt never stated that 'the work of Builders isn't worth a tenth of the work of Coders.' Don't put words in his mouth. The only negative public statement about Achaea's staff that I have seen has been made by you.

Originally Posted by Hephos: Value is based on demand and availability... And you disagree with this Molly? Molly: Value is also based on merit and quality. You disagree with this, Hephos?

Of course he doesn't. The fact of it is this:

If a doctor had the very highest levels of merits and qualities, and a streetsweeper had the same, the doctor would be worth a great deal more.

Why?

Because the doctors skills are worth a #### of a lot more.  He put in years of work educating himself in how to do his job, he just didn't pick up a broom and start sweeping.

Why are his skills worth more?

Because they're rarer, they're wanted by more people, and they took a #### lot more effort to develop.

Originally Posted by Here is a Mud, and not a small stock Mud run by some immature teenager either. It’s one of the big, commercial Muds, in fact the one that tops the voting list of this site, and that he himself likes to refer to as ‘the # 1 Mud on the net’. Now, this owner of this big, commercial Mud, with hundreds of players, discovers that one of his top staff members is a sicko, who likes to ‘play with himself’ in front of a web camera before an audience of some of the Mud’s players, some of which by his own admission are minors. Apparently there is some hard evidence about it too, judging from the details he provided. So what does he do about the situation? Does he report the pervert to the Police or the Net Abuse authorities? Judging from his own story - no he doesn’t. Does he warn his players about the pervert (considering that the latter most likely already has established a network, has access to players’ e-mail addresses, etc)? Again, judging again from his own story – no he doesn’t.

You mustn't be reading the same thing I did.  Why did his players react with revulsion when they were told who he was if Matt didn't tell them?

Molly, I'm seeing a worrying trend where you see what you want to see on this thread and spout garbage from your assumptions in an unseemly attempt to defame people.

[Cyllan]

Well, I am a programmer, I work as a programmer and I thing my work is worth quite a lot of money. And I think my work cannot be done by everyone. You need training, an a certain kind of mental abilities. But training will help quite a lot, even making you a good programmer if you give it time enough. Almost everybody can be a programmer if interested and dedicated enough.

I value builders just because I wouldn't be able to do their work, as I lack the skills. Nobody can be a builder only by training. As we're talking about text muds, is very important the way the builder describes each room, and is a big work. You can learn to make programs, you won't learn to write well unless you're somehow a bit gifted in this aspect.

So, if you think a zone by someone will be great for your mud, act as if it were a work of art and buy it at the right prize the builder wants to sell it. But paying only $20 per zone will only attract the kind of people who would do it for free, and who probably will never do anything with the zone besides giving it to you. So... the copyright thing is giving it too much importance than it has.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by So... the copyright thing is giving it too much importance than it has.

Care to elaborate that a bit? You mean the copyright thing is not important?

Well since we are running a commercial business it is important, in fact it is critical for us to be able to run the game without having to remove things or getting into unecessary arguments with builders.

And we pay $30 now. Will probably increase in the near future too.

[Hardestadt]

Heph, I think he means that the earliest posts in this thread (The ones demanding 'How dare you buy the copyright!!' ) were a tad over the top

-Leigh

[Cyllan]

Thanks Hard, it was meant to say "is geting".

[Hephos]

Akward how this thread ended up in the legal issues.

It is a thread for attaining staff.