[daedalus]

Achaea sucks ass. It doesn't even have GRAPHICS, for God's sake.

Come back when you have normal mapping figured out, Sara****.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 16 2005,18:47) That said, I'd like to clear my standpoint on cheating to Tyche:

That's good because I just hate when people agree with me, because that means I have to do the heavy lifting on finding something interesting that we don't agree on. :-)

Ditto on 1. and 2. But there is a lot to 2. that is just simply out of your hands and into the realm of unenforceable like you say. Along the lines of questy stuff, we had players who would exchange maps areas in e-mail. Builders didn't like it much, but the alternative of monitoring player communications to look for secret deals like "hey give me your email and I'll send you my map" was well dumb... also unconscionable.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 16 2005,18:47) 3. I don't think anyone should be judged without cut and clear evidence, neither in a mud or in RL. I'd never judge a player based solely on accusations from other players myself. But some players are such obvious bad eggs that you soon run out of any sympathy for them.

Well yeah and it's just as obvious to their fellow players who the bad seeds are. Of course in most games like I've suggested here and elsewhere, the players are powerless to do anything about it. So you must judge. Well get out of the judging business. The last thing I personally want to do is to login to my mud and take a look at at the docket of player complaints, play dad, and decide which child is the problem. And as you might be also be aware even a clear cut case with the well-known problem child on the victim side, is usually the result of retaliation by the frustrated but normally good player. You don't have to judge if players have the power to each individually make a decision to exile those they don't like from their space. Peer pressure is a much more powerful force for change than that coming from authority figures.

Well I disagree with you on 5. In the US at least information is not protected under copyright. And whether currency is exchanged for information, or equipment in the mud between players isn't none of my business either. Whether it's real or virtual currency. Why draw the line at exchanging real currency, and not exchange of real services or for something more ephemeral like friendship? Same thing. Hey I can always get great deals when I mud with my wife. I can exchange an uber-sword-of-major-orc-killing for a kiss, and if I really haggle I can even get a better deal outside of the game. Of course she usually wants hard cash for anything she finds. *sigh*

Regarding 4. Get rid of snoop, logging and wizinvis. Really respect their privacy. Why should players have to move their chat outside the game when there's perfectly good chat system in the game? Well it would be after one scrubs the flaws out of it (staff peeking).

My solution to 6 is simply to reverse the progression and provide an advancement track for staff. The advancement track gives higher level staff members less and less powers over the players. Advancement is based solely on contribution, and non-exercise of power. They advance from level 1 (or whatever it is in game terms for a newbie player) to level 0 to level -1 and on to ever decreasing levels of power. Until they are completely invisible and without power over the virtual world. One might ask, well if they can't manipulate anything in the virtual world the players are living in then how do they do anything at all? They do what the do in the meta world of the mud. Creating and coding meta things which are unrealized in the player world and until such time as they (or subset of them), via consensus, collective push a button to make them realized. Yeah it's a zen thing. Sadly many would have to redesign their games to do this.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 17 2005,04:38) But of course, you need no excuse to insult my game. That's the second time in a week now. Last tlyime the List admin removed your posts. It will be interesting to see if they will do the same this time.

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 17 2005,04:48) They removed your post too, Molly. And I didn't insult your game. I just pointed out that there's nothing original about centaurs, fauns, and caucasian humans. That's self-evident. Had any other game claimed to have all original races aside from dwarves and elves, I'd have claimed 'BS' just the same if they had centaurs, fauns, or caucasian humans.

Hey look at the players on this mud forum game. They have to appeal to a moderator to crush each others communications. Now I can't see the post. What about my right to read it, judge for myself and more than likely be highly entertained by it? I protest!! I complain loudly and vociferously in colorful turgid prose that this doth suck! Repression! Tyranny!

P.S. Moderator: Could you remove all the exchanges on this thread between Molly and TheLogos. They are frightening my inner child.

[Molly]

the_logos Feb. 17 2005,17:56

Originally Posted by Haha...hahahah....hahahah. That's too funny. My god, that's like a textbook example of pot calling the kettle black.

I am glad it amuses you.
There is one small difference however.
I attack your arguments.
You attack my mud.
You do a similar thing with KaVir, whenever you run out of arguments.
It's bad debate technique, to say the least.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,03:57) I am glad it amuses you. There is one small difference however. I attack your arguments. You attack my mud. You do a similar thing with KaVir, whenever you run out of arguments. It's bad debate technique, to say the least.

Again, you have to be kidding me. You are the one who -constantly- attacks me rather than my ideas. What's your response to pointing out that coders are valued more highly than builders, for instance, based on what they get paid? Insults and accusations. And let's not forget the time you implied we harbor paedophiles.

Further, what are you talking about, exactly? On the thread in which our posts were deleted, I was attacking what you said, not you. You claimed that your races were original aside from dwarves and elves. This isn't so, and I pointed it out.

Stop playing the victim. It's laughable.

--matt

[Enigma]

Wow, I post a simple question and after a few interesting replies I get a flame war.

Nice to see Top Mud Sites is on form and promoting rational debate


Ignoring the flame war and responding to some of the on-topic posts:

Randomising/Modifying quests: This is something we have been planning for a while and has been done for certain quests - but it's a lot of work and certainly not something we are going to do just because certain players want to force us to.

Alchemist Recipies are an even harder problem: For those who don't know they are a secret class that find components on the game/cut them from corpses and use them to make all sorts of items from Molotov Cocktails to Potions of Giant Strength. A large part of the class is researching and finding the recipies - but the balance of the class is also based on how hard those recipies are to learn and to gather the components for. (i.e. 'claw of evil high level dragon' tends to be needed for a stronger recipy than 'skin of mole&#39.

Creating 'aternative' recipies all with the same balance would be hard work.    -- Fortunately we do have ways to track cheating on this regard though as your research is logged, so we can spot people who are working from a recipy list since they tend to slip up and go straight to the right item when they didn't know they needed it.


Reviews: We leave reviews on with the idea being that any publicity is good publicity because at least it gets our name out there - and anyone too stupid to spot a troll probably can't read well enough to mud anyway . Normally whenever someone posts a troll one of our better players spots it and responds or lets us know so we can respond ourselves - and it get's us a mention on the first page for a while :-)


Rules enforcement: Some good points there, one of the problems we have had recently is 'harrassment' where certain people had taken a dislike to each other and were trying to hound each other off the game. We have tried to put a stop to it and the description of 'daddy and children' really seems appropriate. 'Enigma, Enigma, XX said a swear word', 'Enigma, I have a log here of XX telling me to go away, can you tell him not to' etc etc. :-( It's all so childish and in many ways I think it was a mistake to get involved - but we also don't want to sit around and watch people being harrassed/bullied/whatever.


Anyhow - that's a few thoughts...time to get some work done...

E

[Molly]

Tyche; Feb. 18 2005,00:26

Originally Posted by That's good because I just hate when people agree with me, because that means I have to do the heavy lifting on finding something interesting that we don't agree on. :-)

That’s fine by me, I enjoy a good discussion too. Many of your suggestions are really interesting too.
However, some things that look very easy theoretically are a lot harder to apply in praxis. I believe you are not actively running a mud ATM - (no offence intended, just an observation) – so maybe you forgot a bit about the every day problems that running a Mud entails. (Just like old time players tend to forget how it felt to be a newbie).

Take for instance your idea of removing snoop and wizinvis completely. It’s true that both commands can be abused extensively for intruding on player privacy. But both are also very useful as tools for the staff.

Most imms for instance go wizinvis while they are working on a project, because they don’t want to be disturbed by player questions, while on the other hand they don’t want to appear rude by ignoring them. As for snoop, I use it myself pretty regularly, for instance in the following situations;
1. When a player claims that his char, or some command or quest, is bugged, to find out what is causing the problem, by asking them to repeat the action while I watch. (Usually it turns out to be caused by a bad alias or bad settings in the mud client, but that’s another story).
2. Guiding a new Builder through the first steps of OLC, since that makes it possible to give them immediate input at each stage, which they otherwise cannot receive while they are in the editor.
3. Following a new player through some part of mudschool, to check if the instructions there work as intended.
4. Monitoring when a new zone is testplayed, because some weaknesses only are revealed when the zone is played by someone else than the creator. (You tend to get ‘home blind’ to your own errors, that’s only human).

Actually the easiest way to really address the privacy problem, would be to send a message to the victim each time a snoop command is toggled. We’ve chosen to restrict is to imp level instead. After all, if you cannot trust the imps to be mature about the game they run, who can you trust?

Originally Posted by The last thing I personally want to do is to login to my mud and take a look at at the docket of player complaints, play dad, and decide which child is the problem. And as you might be also be aware even a clear cut case with the well-known problem child on the victim side, is usually the result of retaliation by the frustrated but normally good player. You don't have to judge if players have the power to each individually make a decision to exile those they don't like from their space. Peer pressure is a much more powerful force for change than that coming from authority figures.

I assume that by this you mean an extended ‘ignore command’ or ‘filter’, which allows one player to block out not only private tells, but all communication channels and actions like emote, socials, title etc. from another player?

It would be quite possible to code, the command ‘coventry’ that we have works pretty much that way, although it is an imm command, and isn’t restricted to single player communications, it blocks out all output from the player affected by it. I can see how an extended ignore command or ‘filter’ might be of use for very sensitive players, who for instance would like to block out bad language or twinkish rants. But it also has its definite drawbacks, since problem players would take advantage of it.
Picture the following scenario:

Player A dislikes player B and takes every chance of back-talking him, accusing him of several vile actions, which incidentally all are blatant lies. Since Player B thinks Player A is a jerk, he has long ago ‘filtered’ him out, so he is totally unaware of the rumours that are spreading right under his very nose - and rumours spread incredibly fast in a mud. Since he doesn’t contest anything that player A says, even when he is present in the same room, the other players naturally assume that the allegations are all true. Player B might only become aware of the situation when other players start treating him with growing resentment, unless one of his true friends informs him of what is going on. By then it may already be too late. A lie, repeated often enough and not contested, becomes the truth to many people. And Player B, a decent guy, is now the pariah of the mud, while the real jerk, Player A thrives.

As much as I dislike playing nanny and listening to the daily grieves, complaints, tattling and plain whining – (and I admit that I DO dislike tattling and whining intensely) - someone has to do it, or things would soon get out of hand. I still believe that active imms or ‘Game-masters’ are necessary in any game.

I know your pet peeve is that all bugs are the fault of the Admin, because ‘they suck’, but regardless of how hard we try, bugs will still appear, especially in a developing Mud. We may call ourselves ‘immortals’ but we’re still human. New features may have flaws that aren’t fully worked out and need to be tested in active gameplay. People will get stuck in no-exit rooms that they weren’t supposed to have teleported into in the first place, and need help to get out. Scripts sometimes screw up due to some unforeseen change in the main code. Blatant harassment or just globally annoying twinkishness has to be dealt with. All this usually on a daily basis.

And even the players who whine the most about ‘interfering imms’ usually are the first to come screaming for help, when they run into some problem themselves. A fact is that most players like to see at least one active imm on line. It makes them feel safe. And they also like being able to actually talk to the imms and to get a personal response to their ideas or needs. Why else would ‘Active imms that care’ be such a common point when people list what they expect from a 'good Mud'?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) And even the players who whine the most about ‘interfering imms’ usually are the first to come screaming for help, when they run into some problem themselves.

Isn't that the truth. The biggest debates in Achaea over imm involvement tend to be over the manual enforcement in our (fairly complicated) PK rules. Funnily though, the same ones who always bitch that they'll get punished for killing someone for <this> or <that> were recently VERY loud in complaining that the admins needed to do something about a certain practice called "rezz-killing" (where someone is rezzed and immediately killed again) that was only affecting two groups of players who are considered open PK at all times (but with whom others can contract for assassination work). They were begging the admin to step in to save them.

What drives me a little batty is that the same players will say both that they want less admin interference and want the admins to recognize more "RP" reasons for PKing, something which would require more admin interference and more subjective judgements (of what is and isn't "good RP") on the parts of the admins....which, of course, is something they also bitch about.

A lot of them don't really know what they want, I believe, or rather, they know they want fun, but they don't really know (or haven't thought very hard about) how the opportunity for fun can be given to them.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (daedalus @ Feb. 17 2005,20:11) Achaea sucks ass. It doesn't even have GRAPHICS, for God's sake. Come back when you have normal mapping figured out, Sara****.

God you're an idiot, Daedalus. I'm going to throw you down a well.

--matt
P.S. If you think we don't have graphics, you've obviously never seen the big square we have on our login screen. A SQUARE, man. Doesn't get any more impressive than that.

[SirTank]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 18 2005,14:28) Isn't that the truth. The biggest debates in Achaea over imm involvement tend to be over the manual enforcement in our (fairly complicated) PK rules. Funnily though, the same ones who always bitch that they'll get punished for killing someone for <this> or <that> were recently VERY loud in complaining that the admins needed to do something about a certain practice called "rezz-killing"

We simply added a 90 second affect char flag that makes
them invul to attack and does not let them attack. That way
a rezzed char has ample time to recall or simply camp out,
and does not let them abuse any sory of invul flag since it
only stops PK attacks...

content.....I would just ignore players who share information.
If a person seeks information to the game instead of figuring
it out themselves, that's the person they are. Those that want
the challenge will adventure without 'cheating'. just look at
games like Everqurap, every solution to every quest, item,
mob etc is out there for anyone to lookup. Some of it is helpful,
and some of it just plain takes away all the fun. But it doesn't
seem to hurt them any.

Tank
www.lordtrox.com

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (SirTank @ Feb. 19 2005,03:00) We simply added a 90 second affect char flag that makes them invul to attack and does not let them attack.  That way a rezzed char has ample time to recall or simply camp out, and does not let them abuse any sory of invul flag since it only stops PK attacks...

What about summoned mobs, pet mobs, charmed mobs, etc? Couldn't players just use those to kill each other?

[SirTank]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Feb. 19 2005,07:04) What about summoned mobs, pet mobs, charmed mobs, etc? Couldn't players just use those to kill each other?

No, in the all encompassing greater PK check funtion
we have, it makes sure that any NPC that is a follower
of a PC cannot attack another PC with that flag on. That
one check along with the myrid of other ways to initiate
combat should all be nulified when that rezzed player has
that 90 second AFF flag. Making that kind of solution unabuseable
s your own muds responsibility, it's not that hard to do and
it sure stops the complaints of rezz-killing and keeps the
killed player happy that hes/she isnt whisked away to a graveyard
or whatever other inconvienient results your mud has upon death.

Tank
www.lordtrox.com

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) However, some things that look very easy theoretically are a lot harder to apply in praxis. I believe you are not actively running a mud ATM - (no offence intended, just an observation) – so maybe you forgot a bit about the every day problems that running a Mud entails. (Just like old time players tend to forget how it felt to be a newbie).

My memory is certainly not foggy enough to want to repeat the mistake of being involved in muds that are run on that system again. I have no desire to be involved in "running" a mud in that sense, nor am I currently.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) Take for instance your idea of removing snoop and wizinvis completely. It’s true that both commands can be abused extensively for intruding on player privacy. But both are also very useful as tools for the staff.

I don't have to resort to theory on that, I could list all the mud codebases (non Diku) that don't have snoop or wizinvis. For example none of the available mudlibs that I know for ColdC implement snoop or wizinvis. The point being it isn't at all necessary or needed for problem solving.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) Most imms for instance go wizinvis while they are working on a project, because they don’t want to be disturbed by player questions, while on the other hand they don’t want to appear rude by ignoring them.

It's quite easy enough to indicate availability or unavailability, and retrieve away messages in the same way that players can. And yet what Diku player hasn't had strange experiences with disembodied voices? I contend it's used for quite a different purpose on most muds. Did you ever think of implementing playerviz so players could hide from imms and communicate anonymously as well?

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) As for snoop, I use it myself pretty regularly, for instance in the following situations;

IRT 1. Note boards, forums and tells are certainly more than sufficient to report problems. IMO, if a player is unable to communicate a problem through a note or an exchange, then muds probably aren't going to suit them anyway.
IRT 2-4. I would have thought building and testing in most Dikus was done on test ports or offline. That's how we always did it. If we didn't have enough testers, we'd invite players to participate as well. On other types of muds apparently one is able to build, code and debug online without snoop.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) Actually the easiest way to really address the privacy problem, would be to send a message to the victim each time a snoop command is toggled. We’ve chosen to restrict is to imp level instead. After all, if you cannot trust the imps to be mature about the game they run, who can you trust?

Addressing the privacy problem would involve removing the security holes not inventing excuses to justify them. Implementing key encryption inside a mud would be quite useful as well to secure privacy of communications.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) I assume that by this you mean an extended ‘ignore command’ or ‘filter’, which allows one player to block out not only private tells, but all communication channels and actions like emote, socials, title etc. from another player?

There are actually more things I mean by it, but as far as communications are concerned the above is correct. Your scenario assumes that players remain unaware of what ignore does, whether it's even operative, cannot form character judgments themselves, and for some reason Player A is still actually quite interested in continuing to deal with Player B via third parties.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) ...someone has to do it, or things would soon get out of hand.

I don't really know what "out of hand" means to you. I expect players would decide that for themselves. It would mean players would no longer whine, bitch, moan and rely on you to solve their social problems. Why do you assume they wouldn't make creative use of social tools available to them? They clearly demonstrate that they are quite capable of making full use of the rest of their avatar's toolbox, your other game commands (especially the bugged ones ;-), and most of all they use these existing tools in concert with other players.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) I know your pet peeve is that all bugs are the fault of the Admin, because ‘they suck’, but regardless of how hard we try, bugs will still appear, especially in a developing Mud. We may call ourselves ‘immortals’ but we’re still human. New features may have flaws that aren’t fully worked out and need to be tested in active gameplay. People will get stuck in no-exit rooms that they weren’t supposed to have teleported into in the first place, and need help to get out. Scripts sometimes screw up due to some unforeseen change in the main code. Blatant harassment or just globally annoying twinkishness has to be dealt with. All this usually on a daily basis.

My pet peeve isn't just bugs, but punishing people because your design or code is broken. If you have to deal with "bugs" like the above on a daily basis then yes, that's certainly level 1 on my "you suck" table. The social stuff is because players don't have any the powerz to prevent it. It's a circular argument, they don't have the power so they need us. See how much they need us.

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Feb. 18 2005,11:12) Why else would ‘Active imms that care’ be such a common point when people list what they expect from a 'good Mud'?

The phrase is certainly very popular among those who start muds, and advertise them. And you wrote an article on just the sort of players who would use that phrase in one sense. For a great many it translates into "they listen to me and implement the things I want". I don't put much stock in it from the viewpoint of "I want to mud in a safe monitored environment with no privacy" though I acknowledge some players do.

If you want to know whether you really can administrate a mud effectively, delete your immortal character and recreate as a regular player character under the same name. Set your title to Head Wizard, Big Cheese, Great Kahuna, or whatever just so players know you are the one running the mud and the one to report problems to.

[Molly]

I think we are generally in agreement. I too believe that player privacy is important and should be respected, we just implement it in different ways.

Here are some comments though:

Originally Posted by IRT 1.  Note boards, forums and tells are certainly more than sufficient to report problems.  IMO, if a player is unable to communicate a problem through a note or an exchange, then muds probably aren't going to suit them anyway.

I wish you were right about that. However, the problems  I am talking about are usually with newbies, some of them not used to mud commands at all, others just unused to our blend of old and new commands. Newbies regrettably are often not very verbal, and some of them even have problems of using our very simple note system, even though there is a detailed help file. It's so much easier to ask an imm. And it is so much easier for me to say; 'ok, show me what happens', than asking them to describe something verbally that they don't even understand. Many things that look like bugs are caused by bad aliases and things in people's inventories.
One example of this is the 'sign bug', that most stock Diku players have encountered. You type 'look sign' and it tells you 'you see a city guard signet ring. (And before you or someone else accuses us of being stock Diku: We are not. We are heavily modified Circle.
It was just an example, ok.    ).
Anyhow, newbies asking 'stupid questions' can be irritating at times, but if you help them over the first stumble stones, at least SOME of them develop to pretty good players in time. I usually don't deal with these things myself, we have Helpers and Heroes for that, but sometimes there is none other but me on line to ask.

Originally Posted by IRT 2-4. I would have thought building and testing in most Dikus was done on test ports or offline.  That's how we always did it.  If we didn't have enough testers, we'd invite players to participate as well.  On other types of muds apparently one is able to build, code and debug online without snoop.

I must have expressed myself badly. We do have both a separate Buildport and a Testport for new code. That's where I mainly use the snoop command in the ways I mentioned. (The code is the same in all Ports obviously).

Apart from that, a few of our most trusted imms also fix typos in the descs on the fly in the Game Port. They usually go through the typo report list on a daily basis. It's a lot faster than fixing them in another port and then getting the updated files in, since so many zones are involved. Saves a reboot too, which most players dislike. (And yeah, before you say it - I know we suck and there should have been no typos in the first place, but hey, we're human )

Also there are things like Imm conferences,  when you really don't want to be disturbed, and also don't like to flaunt the entire Staff on top of the who-list, cause it scares the poor dears. And even if you put a BUSY sign next to your name, as we all do at times, the players don't always respect it. I wish someone like you would stand up and protect Imm privacy, hehe.

Originally Posted by I don't really know what "out of hand" means to you.

"Out of hand" means for instance a scenario like the one I described. If you have mud politics, like we do, you also have players who would abuse a 'filter' command  for political or personal reasons.

Originally Posted by My pet peeve isn't just bugs, but punishing people because your design or code is broken.  If you have to deal with "bugs" like the above on a daily basis then yes, that's certainly level 1 on my "you suck" table.

I must have expressed myself badly. I don't have to deal with bugs 'on a daily basis', they are actually quite rare, even if they do occur. With 'daily' I meant social problems, like alledged and real harassment.

Originally Posted by It would mean players would no longer whine, bitch, moan and rely on you to solve their social problems.  Why do you assume they wouldn't make creative use of social tools available to them?   They clearly demonstrate that they are quite capable of making full use of the rest of their avatar's toolbox, your other game commands (especially the bugged ones ;-),

Well, my usual response to those complaints is 'Sort your personal problems out on your own, don't drag the Staff into it.' But, as most admins know, there ARE cases when the harrassment is real, and I just don't think a 'filter' command is the best for that purpose, because the same jerks that harrass other players are also the ones that would take advantage of it by spreading malicious rumours about someone they took a dislike too. And even if the player who applied the filter on the jerk may not care what the jerk says, they might still care about the potential effect on other players, who are not jerks.

Anyhow, those are technicalities. I have no real quarrel with you. I dislike Big Brother Muds in any way as much as you do, and I think we respect player privacy a lot more in 4D than most muds do. Up to a point where I sometimes get accused of being too passive and not dealing with the jerks hardhandedly enough. On the other hand of course the jerks accuse me of interfering too much - (except in the cases when someone decides to retaliate of course, THEN they scream loud enough).

Let's just face it, as Admin you can never do anything right in the eyes of the players.

[TheTrollCop]

4-->

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 18 2005,04[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]4)]Ag