[Hephos]

Yes, that is our current offer. It will be increased in a near future.

We use a custom building tool which can be downloaded from the website. The areas are used in a custom java codebase.

If you are interested to build and be part of a real project (and not a kindergarden mud without a future) check us out.

Building offer

Emil aka "Hephos"
Sharune Multi-User Dungeon
Mythicscape Entertainment

[KaVir]

I think I should point out that this "real project" has no more security than any other "kindergarden mud" - despite the fancy "Mythicscape Entertainment" name, there is no company, nor any commercial backing. It's just another guy working on a mud.

But in particular, you should be warned that the $20 (which would generally work out at around 1 or 2 cents per hour) "may be changed at any time by Mythicscape", and isn't just for the area - but for the entire copyright itself. In other words you give up all rights to your own work. You cannot take your area elsewhere, you cannot later use it in your own mud, you cannot distribute it to other muds, etc.

The agreement on the website is also extremely dubious looking, and I would strongly advice anyone considering the offer to have a lawyer check it over first. From my understanding, it seems to suggest that once you've signed it, Hephos can claim the copyright of anything you have ever produced or will ever produce with his tools, or anything submitted to the mud. If legally valid, that would mean that once you've signed the agreement, he will automatically own the copyright to any further areas you produce (and thus not be required to give any additional payment). You also give up the right to take any sort of legal action should such occur. In addition, the agreement seems to act somewhat like an NDA, which might even be used to prevent you from taking your own ideas elsewhere.

While I'm sure Hephos doesn't have bad intentions, the fact still remains this "offer" is extremely misleading, and personally I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot barge pole. I would very strongly advice anyone considering it to first consult a legal expert, because otherwise you have the potential to be royally screwed.

So in summary: Be careful. I wouldn't want to see someone get ripped off.

[Molly]

Also; building a normal 100 room area takes 80-100 hours of effective work.

Apart from the lousy payment offered and the legal applications that KaVir so aptly pointed out, I'd avoid throwing that amount of work down the drain, just for the pleasure of being ripped off by some get-rich-quick jerk.

[Yui Unifex]

On the other hand, how many mud admins give you pizza money for completing a zone? It doesn't look like it's money to wholly compenstate the large amount of work that goes into creating a zone. That would be stupid. It very much appears to be something to show appreciation, like when your boss pays for pizza on friday after work.

Anyway, I don't think it's a very big deal =).

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by On the other hand, how many mud admins give you pizza money for completing a zone?

I'd say around the same number that try to strip you of your rights to that zone, and all future zones, for the price of a pizza.

Originally Posted by It very much appears to be something to show appreciation, like when your boss pays for pizza on friday after work.

Yeah, but he also pays me a salary...

Originally Posted by Anyway, I don't think it's a very big deal =).

It might not be a very big deal for you or me, but it could be for someone else. It looks like it has the potential to seriously screw the unwary builder. I'm just trying to make sure that such builders actually realise what they are getting themselves into before they commit themselves.

[Yui Unifex]

Plenty of people don't mind giving up their copyright for some of their works, but I'm not contesting your rightly pointing out the consequences of it. I'm primarily referring to Molly's statement about it being a "lousy payment".

Originally Posted by (Yui Unifex @ foo) It very much appears to be something to show appreciation, like when your boss pays for pizza on friday after work.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ bar) Yeah, but he also pays me a salary...

So? =)

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I'm primarily referring to Molly's statement about it being a "lousy payment".

Well I'm not really sure how else you could interpret a thread entitled "Get paid for building areas". Following the link clarifies the issue further, by stating "This offer does in no way give you a job at Mythicscape. It is a contracted hire. You work for yourself and sell the copyrights of the material to Mythicscape. You will be paid only for the submitted work once it has been approved."

Sounds like a payment to me. Thus my response to your analogy - my boss does not pay me a pizza per month.

[Hephos]

First, mythicscape is a registed company in sweden.

Well, 20 might be "lousy" payment to you guys that got your jobs (kavir mainly, since he been bragging about his salary in the past).

20 is not lousy to someone that does not have a job, that can't even afford to play a pay2play game that cost you 10/month (eq, daoc) etc.

If they build 1 area for us, they can play daoc for 2 months or more.

Also, 20 is our beginning offer, it will be HIGHER in a near future.

We haven't ripped off anyone so far, and are not planning to, so you can mind your own business kavir and go pester someone else, please.

[malaclypse]

I'm confused why there is so much fuss about this offer. $20 per area may not be much compared to someones professional salary, but it is significant when compared to the big fat nothing that you would get for building on most MUDs. I've never played one of your MUDs, Kavir, so I'm not sure if you've ever paid your builders. Have you?

Also, why would someone be paid a salary for a work for hire job? The point is that you're contracted to do a job, and then you get compensated for it.

Regarding assigning the copyright... well duuuh! Why would this guy pay someone to make an area for his MUD without getting the copyright to it? Doing so would allow anyone who ever built for him to yank their work away at any time. Of course he wants the copyright.

And if you don't want your future work being assigned over, don't submit it to Sharune MUD. If you don't submit your work, you retain your copyright. I don't see how this is sneaky in any way. In fact, that agreement looks pretty standard for a work for hire.

Where is all this hostility coming from? Bias against the commercial guys?

- Ryan

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Where is all this hostility coming from? Bias against the commercial guys?

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

Builders usually gets a lousy deal in all muds. this is just taking the lousy deal a bit further.

Ideally a mud is a teamwork, where code and zones are valued equally high. In reality Coders usually get all the best positions, and Builders - even good, productive, experienced Builders - are looked upon as second rate imms.

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?

[the_logos]

I'm also confused. That agreement looks unobjectionable. Of course they're going to own your work if they pay you to do it. Besides, it's hardly as if there's some big payoff for being able to take your area to another mud. Few muds of quality are going to accept an area from an unrelated mud.

And while Kavir is correct that there is not some guarantee that this project will get off the ground it already looks like a more professional and organized effort than 95% of the muds out there.

--matt

[Hephos]

Well consider builder X builds an area for a mud.

Why would he not give the copyright to that mud, along with receiving a written agreement that the mud will ALWAYS give credit WHEREVER the work is used?

The only reason would be to use the work elsewhere...

Now any mud accepting this, would not have unique or original material = crappy (in my opinion). All good muds, will not accept their builders to send off the work elsewhere.

Now considering MOST muds out there, whenever a builder submits an area (or builds it online the mud with olc) they get NO written agreements that they will always have credits for it. In fact, mostly they have to agree that their work will not be used elsewhere, and that the mud owners can do whatever they want with it.

Getting paid, and getting a written agreement that credits will always be there, is in my opinion better, even though the salary might not be so great.

[the_logos]

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

Exactly how is he preying on anyone? He's offering more than most muds offer.

Originally Posted by 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?

We've had many volunteer coders over time. Our CTO and three of our producers all started as volunteers (ie being paid LESS than Hephos is offering) and now all have attractive full-time jobs. Three of the above people now own significant portions of the games as well. 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.

--matt

[malaclypse]

Originally Posted by More likely bias against commercial guys who prey on the work of others. Builders usually gets a lousy deal in all muds. this is just taking the lousy deal a bit further.

Have you ever offered a builder more than $20 to build an area for your MUD? If not, you have no right to suggest that Hephos is preying on his builders. Making a lousy deal worse by adding payment to it? I really don't know where to start addressing this, it literally makes no sense at all to me.

Originally Posted by Ideally a mud is a teamwork, where code and zones are valued equally high. In reality Coders usually get all the best positions, and Builders - even good, productive, experienced Builders - are looked upon as second rate imms.

Thats just plain economic reality. The more specialized a skill someone has, the more they will be paid for it. Coding is infinitely more complex than building. Besides, all of these arguments assume the poor builders are being coerced into something, although thats clearly illogical.

Still waiting to be convinced that this is born of something other than knee-jerk bias.

- Ryan

[Ytrewtsu]

Originally Posted by (malaclypse @ Aug. 27 2003,13:30) Coding is infinitely more complex than building.

You're going to get flamed for that I do believe.

Ytrewtsu

I can understand at least one of Kavir's points just fine, the point of trying to keep others from being ripped off. That is understandable and good in these days, especially with a lot of people that don't pay much attention to disclaimers (look at the amount of Spyware on others computers).

I believe you are right though, Malaclypse, in that Molly's comments were based off of a knee-jerk bias, or maybe even a personal bias against  this company.

If I were to use builders in my mud, then I would probably require that they not use the area elsewhere or sign the rights of the area over to me (I value originality). So, of course, this company wishing such bothers me not at all.

Originally Posted by Builders usually gets a lousy deal in all MUDS. this is just taking the lousy deal a bit further.

Bah.

Yes, bah. That's not really all I have to say. Using that logic, I would have to say that most administrators get a lousy deal too: Whining players, whining and non-working staff, headaches, bills and usually nothing but satisfaction in return. Hmmm..

But if it were thought of that way, i'm sure there would not be many MUDS out there. What is being offered here, IMO, isn't very bad. If I had the time to sit around writing areas then I'm sure i'd probably do it.

In the job world there are quite a few jobs in existence who use  this approach, or a modified form of this approach, to conduct business. Anyways, thanks for pointing it out to those that may have missed it Kavir and thank you Hephos for enriching poor, can't-buy-pizza builders.

[Edit made to correct typing errors due to lack of sleep, Grammar errors left intact for authenticity ]*2

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Well, 20 might be "lousy" payment to you guys that got your jobs (kavir mainly, since he been bragging about his salary in the past).

I have never bragged about my salary. In fact I've specifically said in the past that I don't earn as much as I could, because I prefer the working conditions where I am (I work to live, not live to work). However you're right about one point - I consider 1-2 cents per hour to be a "lousy" payment.

Originally Posted by We haven't ripped off anyone so far, and are not planning to, so you can mind your own business kavir and go pester someone else, please.

No, as I keep telling you every time you try this, I will not simply ignore your posts. I consider your "offer" extremely dubious, and feel obliged to warn any prospective builders. If they still want to build for you, that's their choice, but at least they'll have some warning in advance.

Originally Posted by malaclypse wrote: I'm confused why there is so much fuss about this offer. $20 per area may not be much compared to someones professional salary, but it is significant when compared to the big fat nothing that you would get for building on most MUDs. I've never played one of your MUDs, Kavir, so I'm not sure if you've ever paid your builders. Have you?

You're completely and utterly missing the point. Most muds grant builders a position on the mud, and in return the builder allows them to use their area for non-commercial purposes. Hephos isn't asking for permission to use the area though - he's buying the copyright (meaning complete ownership of all rights) to the area for what basically amounts to 1-2 cents per hour of work (and retains the right to change that at will), within a commercial mud (so assuming $10 monthly payments, he'd get the money back from a single player in 2 months). Furthermore, his agreement is phrased in such a way that he could also claim ownership over all past and future areas submitted his mud, or using his building tools, without having to pay a single cent more.

And if, like most of these ventures, his mud falls over, your hundreds of hours of creative work have just been flushed into oblivion. You cannot take them elsewhere, or even use them as examples of your work, because you no longer own them.

Originally Posted by Regarding assigning the copyright... well duuuh! Why would this guy pay someone to make an area for his MUD without getting the copyright to it? Doing so would allow anyone who ever built for him to yank their work away at any time.

No, it wouldn't. I've explained several times to Hephos how he could go about ensuring that they couldn't. I've even explained to him how he could go about ensuring that they didn't use their work on other muds, which is what he claimed was the reason why he wanted the transfer of copyright. But each time he's instead opted to take the entire ownership of the work away from the original author.

Originally Posted by And if you don't want your future work being assigned over, don't submit it to Sharune MUD. If you don't submit your work, you retain your copyright.

Actually that's not true. According to the agreement, once you've signed it you automatically give up your copyright simply by creating work with his building tool.

Originally Posted by Where is all this hostility coming from? Bias against the commercial guys?

No, bias against exploitation of builders. Don't you think they at least deserve to be warned what they are letting themselves into? There are more than enough mud coders who have stopped contributing after being repeatedly burnt, the last thing we need is for builders to start getting treated the same way.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Aug. 28 2003,04:45) Hephos isn't asking for permission to use the area though - he's buying the copyright (meaning complete ownership of all rights) to the area for what basically amounts to 1-2 cents per hour of work (and retains the right to change that at will), within a commercial mud (so assuming $10 monthly payments, he'd get the money back from a single player in 2 months).

Wow, yeah, cause you'd get so much by being able to submit it to different muds!

What do you think the builders he's trying to attract do with their areas, man? It's not like they're going to Bioware and saying, "Hey look, I wrote this area for a text mud. Hire me!" It's not as if the builder is going to go sell that area to another mud. What does said hypothetical builder lose that actually matters? Nothing that I can see, but he gains $20. Better deal than most muds.

--matt

[Hephos]

Quoting kavir
>Actually that's not true.  According to the agreement, once
>you've signed it you automatically give up your copyright
>simply by creating work with his building tool.

Actually, the copyright line of the agreement is changed. The submitee only give up copyrights of things submitted that has any connection to the game.

It does not affect anything you have built, and not submitted.

So someone can perfectly fine create whatever they want with our tools without giving up any copyrights. It is when they actually submit the work to us and let us use it, that the agreement comes in.

(Not that i see how anyone would want to build an area with our building tool, and NOT submit it to us... its not like it can be used in any other game.)

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by the_logos wrote: What do you think the builders he's trying to attract do with their areas, man?

You appear to have missed the part where I said "And if, like most of these ventures, his mud falls over, your hundreds of hours of creative work have just been flushed into oblivion. You cannot take them elsewhere, or even use them as examples of your work, because you no longer own them."

Originally Posted by Hephos wrote: Actually, the copyright line of the agreement is changed. The submitee only give up copyrights of things submitted that has any connection to the game.

Well that's an improvement at least.

Originally Posted by So someone can perfectly fine create whatever they want with our tools without giving up any copyrights. It is when they actually submit the work to us and let us use it, that the agreement comes in.

Although they still lose the copyright, even if you decide not to approve (or, therefore, pay them for) the area.

Originally Posted by Not that i see how anyone would want to build an area with our building tool, and NOT submit it to us... its not like it can be used in any other game

Of course it can. The layout of an area isn't the creative part, nor is it particularly difficult to change. If they create an area and discover that there is no demand or requirement for it, why would they want to just throw away that work?

[Hephos]

Actually, feel free to give suggestions on how to change our agreement then kavir, so we can skip all this since it both is bad for us, and takes up your valuable time.

These are our main points we want to have secured:

1. Any material we send the builder should be kept confidential. (NDA like)

2. The builder do not wish to send in a written agreement for every area they create. Only 1 agreement. (It is perfectly fine with us if every builder sends in an agreement for every material they create, but they don't want that, too much hassle.)

3. Any material that the builder submits to us should NOT be submitted to ANY other place, or used in any other ways. We don't want our game theme to be popping up in other games, books, movies or whatever.

4. We should be allowed to alter the material as we wish, and publish it in any of our games or products.

5. The original creator should always get credits wherever the material is used.

6. Payments should not be included in this agreement. Payments are based on our current offers at the website, with a deadline date. (Example, until the 20th january 2003, we will offer 100 bucks/finished submitted zone).

For this i think our current agreement is ok... If this can be changed to use exclusive rights, (as kavir mentioned in the past) sure give some suggestions.

All we want is areas and happy builders.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by Hephos: These are our main points we want to have secured: 1. Any material we send the builder should be kept confidential. (NDA like)

Sounds reasonable, but you may need to address the scope of the confidentiality. If you send to the builder information that is also available to the public (eg history or theme which is on the mud's web page), and try to treat  this as "confidential", then it is (quite sensibly) likely to be regarded as invalid, and the whole "agreement" (or at least the "confidentiality" part of it) could also become invalid.

Originally Posted by 2. The builder do not wish to send in a written agreement for every area they create. Only 1 agreement. (It is perfectly fine with us if every builder sends in an agreement for every material they create, but they don't want that, too much hassle.)

Fair enough, but you might  find it useful to have a similar agreement for "one-off" deals for any builders who prefer them, and possibly to incorporate the current rate in the agreement (to avoid any possible misunderstanding/dispute)

Originally Posted by 3. Any material that the builder submits to us should NOT be submitted to ANY other place, or used in any other ways. We don't want our game theme to be popping up in other games, books, movies or whatever.

I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you intend here, but your requirement appears unreasonable. It implies that you can reject work by a builder, thus not paying for it, but that the work is effectively "yours" (insofar as it can't be used anywhere else). I think you need to allow a builder whose work you reject to use it elsewhere.
Possibly amend it to something along the lines of "The agreement becomes void if the work is not approved/accepted within 30 days, or is rejected, and the copyright ownership of the work reverts to the builder."
You would probably want to extend that to ensure that any references unique to your mud would be removed before the work can be used elsewhere, to protect your IP.

Originally Posted by 4. We should be allowed to alter the material as we wish, and publish it in any of our games or products.

This is too ambitious. I think you would be wise to apply some reasonable restrictions. To take some extreme examples, using that area as an example "How not to write an area" in your manual, or to use it in a way that the builder is philosophically opposed to (eg on a porn site) would be unreasonable, and risks making the agreement invalid. I realise that it's going to be difficult to find a suitable form of words to define "reasonable" limits for how far you can change the work, but at minimum I think you need to allow the builder the option of insisting that the work should be "anonymous", rather than credited to them.

Originally Posted by 5. The original creator should always get credits wherever the material is used.

Fine - except the point I made above, where the work has changed to the point where the builder wishes to be uncredited. Allow the builder an option to insist on removal of the credit.

Originally Posted by 6. Payments should not be included in this agreement. Payments are based on our current offers at the website, with a deadline date. (Example, until the 20th january 2003, we will offer 100 bucks/finished submitted zone).

Understood, in the context of a "standing agreement" rather than one agreement per zone.

Additional point. Whilst I'm sure you don't expect your mud to fail, it's wise to take precautions and allow for the possibility. In that case, the ownership/copyright of the work should revert to the builder.

I would prefer to see this situation resolved via a suitable form of exclusive licence (irrevocable except under extreme conditions), but I think that if you reconsidered your "requirements" in the light of my comments above, and amended your agreement appropriately, it would be fairer to builders without weakening your position unreasonably.

Final point - I think KaVir may have misplaced a decimal point in saying that this represents 1 or 2 cents per hour. Sounds more likely it should be 10 to 20 cents an hour (for 100 to 200 hours to make a 20 dollar zone). Still falls some way below a "reasonable" wage, but it's better than nothing.

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (Loriel @ Aug. 28 2003,09:51) Final point - I think KaVir may have misplaced a decimal point in saying that this represents 1 or 2 cents per hour. Sounds more likely it should be 10 to 20 cents an hour (for 100 to 200 hours to make a 20 dollar zone). Still falls some way below a "reasonable" wage, but it's better than nothing.

Actually, for creative writers (which are what builders mainly are), that's about par for course in payment. Think about how long it takes to write a short story from conception to final edits and then get $50 for the average sale (assuming you can secure a sale). There are higher paying rates that may pay you up to $500, but competition is fierce. Even for a novel, which could take years to write, IF it gets published, you are lucky if you make $5,000. For the most part, writers make pennies per hour and feel successful when they do.

In any event, aside from legalities raised (I think $20 for an area really isn't payment but an honorarium), I believe most builders generally don't look for cash as compensation but rather the joy of having people participate in something they created. I've personally never expected anything in return for any area I built and never felt cheated. Once I did unexpectedly receive a $50 Amazon gift certificate from an admin at the end of the year and was pleased as punch.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Loriel @ Aug. 28 2003,09:51) I would prefer to see this situation resolved via a suitable form of exclusive licence (irrevocable except under extreme conditions), but I think that if you reconsidered your "requirements" in the light of my comments above, and amended your agreement appropriately, it would be fairer to builders without weakening your position unreasonably.

I'd say whatever a builder agrees ahead of time to is fair. No one is forcing anyone to build on his mud.
--matt

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by I'd say whatever a builder agrees ahead of time to is fair. No one is forcing anyone to build on his mud. --matt

I wouldn't agree that it's automatically fair because it's agreed beforehand.

For example, there are many cases where people consider software sales terms unfair, despite having "agreed" by clicking on the EULA, opening the package, etc.

In general, I think you can only regard "agreement" implies "fairness" if
(a) both parties fully understand the terms and their implications
(b) neither party is being "reluctantly forced" into the agreement by poor negotiating position, or lack of alternatives.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Loriel @ Aug. 28 2003,21:37) I wouldn't agree that it's automatically fair because it's agreed beforehand. For example, there are many cases where people consider software sales terms unfair, despite having "agreed" by clicking on the EULA, opening the package, etc. In general, I think you can only regard "agreement" implies "fairness" if (a) both parties fully understand the terms and their implications (b) neither party is being "reluctantly forced" into the agreement by poor negotiating position, or lack of alternatives.

Well, you and I have different definitions of fair.

Don't agree to or sign a contract if you don't agree with it and understand it.

--matt

[Lanthum]

A suggestion - try checking out the rules for a Contest for writing or photography.  The ones I have seen (and been involved with) have had sections that deal with the copyright of materials submitted.

If I understand you correctly Hephos, all you really want is the ability to use anything that is submitted to you, the way you want to use it, where you want.  And to protect your "trade secrets" from getting out.  If this is what you want, find some rules for a Photography Contest or Submission rules for short stories and look them over.  Just protect the small guy, by giving a deadline that you have to choose to use the work in a current project or not, and then give the rights back if unused.  Holding onto the copyrights just because "you might use it sometime before 2005" doesn't seem very fair.

One last final point.  I think all the criticism comes from the fact that you are trying to be very business like, but haven't gone the complete distance yet.  If you want a legal agreement, even though it costs a great deal of money sometimes, (I know, I own my own business) you need to have an attorney look it over before using it.  It not only could hurt the other guy, it could hurt you.  But keep it up, it seems your on the right track!  

[Molly]

Since this thread has turned into something pretty interesting, let me try to explain a bit better what lies behind my, in retrospect, rather blunt statements.

First:
I don’t have anything per se against commercial muds, in fact I am involved in a potential commercial project myself, where my partner is coding a Mud from scratch, while I am going to provide the areas for it. What I DO have a problem with however, is commercial Muds that aren’t up front about being commercial and that attempt to rip their players and/or staff off – or at least have as their first priority to squeeze as much profit as possible out from them.

Let me give you some examples of what I consider ‘ripping off’:
1. Claiming that your Mud is ‘totally free to play’, while in effect players will have an almost crippling handicap, unless they shell out an amount of RL money on equipment, weapons, skills, spells and special commands.
2. Hiding the fact that your Mud is commercial, by putting the info about it in some obscure place of the Website, while at the same time allowing players to play for free for a month or so, in the expectation that they then will be ‘hooked’ enough to accept the fee.
3. Hiding the cost by calling it ‘donations’ and then hassle the players that choose not to donate, until they either submit or quit the Mud.
4. Paying your staff ‘peanut money’ for putting a lot of work into something that you yourself are making – or expecting to make - a pretty big financial profit from.

Secondly:
Builders – and even Coders – can get a bad deal in both commercial and free muds. Usually the nature of it is a bit different however.

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.

In a commercial Mud, the owner makes a profit. It can be big or small, depending on how successful they are in selling their product. (Note that ‘most successful’ here, doesn’t necessarily mean ‘highest quality’ of the game itself, it only means how many players they can get to pay a maximum amount of $, i.e how good they are at marketing their Mud and how smart they are at inventing features that generate money).

Now you can naturally get a bum deal in a free Mud too. In fact there are tons of Muds, ran by immature twinks, who not only treat their players like crap, but also their staff. (Totally crappy commercial Muds like that don’t exist, for the simple reason that nobody in their right mind would pay a cent to play a mud like that).

BUT, there is also a rather limited number of free muds that are run ‘professionally’, (in spite of the non-profit condition), by mature people, who try to be as fair as possible both to their players and their staff. These Muds do exist, and in many cases their game quality equals that of the commercial Muds. They also set up Build Policies that guarantee the people that work for them a fair treatment, although payment in cash is generally not even an option for those free Muds – for a very simple reason:

Most free Muds don’t have a totally custom code. The majority of them run on DIKU or any of its derivates – MERC, CIRCLE etc. – where the licence that goes with the code expressively forbids anyone from making any kind of profit. It doesn’t matter how much the code has been modified or added to; if it started out as a Diku derivate, it’s still a derivate, and the licence applies.

That said, here are some comments to some of the posters:

Hephos

Originally Posted by 20 is not lousy to someone that does not have a job, that can't even afford to play a pay2play game that cost you 10/month (eq, daoc) etc. If they build 1 area for us, they can play daoc for 2 months or more.

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.

Hephos2:

Originally Posted by Why would he not give the copyright to that mud, along with receiving a written agreement that the mud will ALWAYS give credit WHEREVER the work is used? The only reason would be to use the work elsewhere... Now any mud accepting this, would not have unique or original material = crappy (in my opinion). All good muds, will not accept their builders to send off the work elsewhere.

Hephos3:

Originally Posted by Now considering MOST muds out there, whenever a builder submits an area (or builds it online the mud with olc) they get NO written agreements that they will always have credits for it. In fact, mostly they have to agree that their work will not be used elsewhere, and that the mud owners can do whatever they want with it. Getting paid, and getting a written agreement that credits will always be there, is in my opinion better, even though the salary might not be so great.

I can think of at least one reason why a Builder would want to yank their area away from a Mud, even if they DON’T plan to use it somewhere else.

If 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.

Most serious Muds give full credit to their Builders, and they also recognise the fact that the author deserves the copyright to their own creative work.

I run a Mud with 100% unique zones myself, so naturally I wouldn’t be very happy if any of our zones turned up in another mud, and our Builders are made well aware of this fact, when they sign up for us. Our Builder Policy also states that any zone approved and entered in the Game Port will NOT be removed under any circumstances - unless the Imps decide so for reasons of their own. 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.

Still, there would not be much I could or would do about it, if anyone should decide to break this “gentlemen’s agreement”. To my knowledge this hasn’t happened yet, in 6 years time. If the problem should ever occur, I guess we’d deal with it when it happens. Most likely our decision would be to remove the zone in question from our Mud, in spite of the hassle that would mean, to get rid of the objects in the pfiles. We have over 160 zones by now, so the loss of one or two would not be that big a blow.

Malaclypse:  

Originally Posted by Have you ever offered a builder more than $20 to build an area for your MUD?

Since I run a free mud (= not making any profit from it whatsoever myself) – no, I haven’t. Our Mud runs on Circle code, so even if I wanted to, the licence prohibits me.

I do however provide as fair conditions as possible for those that build for me. Including Builders getting full credit, retaining full copyright to their own work, and getting an Immortal on the Game Port in return for the first 100 room zone they produce. They also get a copy of their zone, on demand. (Actually very few demand it, strangely enough).

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.

The_Logos:

Originally Posted by 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.

No, that actually sounds like a pretty good deal, much like the one I got myself on my current Mud. I wasn’t promised anything when I entered it, not even an imm on the game - in fact the contrary, since I came there with the reputation of being a troublemaker. I ended up Imp and co-owner. That’s what I call a good deal, even though I never did and never will get a penny in real money for all my work.

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?

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by BUT – how many of the Builders out there get the same good deal? – even the good, talented hardworking Builders?

Well in my opinion there is a HUGE difference between a guy that has spent several years in a proffessional education to become a proficient coder (and you do need that to get good, or a previous life of complete geekhood) and someone that builds zones (builder). A proficient coder probably has spent thousands of dollars for his education too.

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. All you need is a creative mind, and some basic writing skills = most semi adult people (especially that plays roleplaying games, and textbased for that matter).

A coder is way much harder to get the hands on, especially for free games, so off course they are treated with more respect and get better deals.

Compared to good coders, decent builders are actually growing off the trees

I might add that our coders are volunteers and the builders actually get better deals. If possible we will hire the coders when the game gets successful, but we give the same offer to our devoted builders too.

[malaclypse]

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.

Regardless of the relative morality of this, it does not exist for one simple reason: It would be bankrupt before it started.

Imagine I hired a team of builders to help me create a MUD, and paid them standard fare for writers. I would end up paying something like a few bucks a room. Multiply that by thousands and I've already spent several tens of thousands of dollars. Lets be modest (for professional writers) and say you pay $3 a room. Lets continue the modesty and say you only have 5000 rooms in your mud. You're up to $15,000, and haven't even begun to think about a backstory for this world.

Now you have to hire coders, who lets say earn $50 an hour. Depending on the complexity of your MUD, this will cost you anywhere from $20K up to, well, the sky is the limit I suppose. But for modesty's sake, say you have a small game in terms of functionality and only spend $20K.

Now you're in the hole $35,000 and you haven't even begun looking at hardware, bandwidth, legal fees, business fees, and marketing. You're looking at -minimum- $40,000. And thats compiled with extremely conservative numbers. Actual numbers are probably closer to well over $100,000 to hire people at what you call "fair" prices to create a mud.

Luckily, there are lots of people who not only don't feel exploited, but enjoy creating things to enhance the community that they are a part of, regardless of whether someone makes money from it or not. Do you honestly believe the community that a good MUD creates is not existant in commercial muds?