[Tocamat]

I am certain I seen a thread in which Synozeer said it WAS allowed to offer a mud wide reward for 'voting' on the top 100. However, in rules it states that you cannot offer ANY incentive. Which is correct or under what circumstances can we 'reward' our players for attaining a goal via voting?

[Terloch]

Rewards of any sort, whether for single players tracked by IP address, or to the entire mud, or percentage of players, or one person, or anything, is completely forbidden and against the rules now.

There are no circumstances which you can reward players for voting.

[Tocamat]

Synozeer wrote

[/quote]I've decided to go ahead and not allow incentives and rewards to be given to players for voting. Here is the new entry in the Rules section:

Quote  
You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes. You CAN offer a game-wide prize (e.g. for ALL players on your mud) for reaching a goal, such as getting your mud the top 20, finishing in the top 10, etc.


I decided to go looking for what I had seen. Perhaps the rules section has not yet been updated to reflect this policy?

[Terloch]

Directly from the rules...

Originally Posted by Can I offer rewards for voting? You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes.

[Nemene]

You are not allowed to offer incentives to players to vote. That does not mean to say you can not give all players, even the players who have not voted, a reward if you come say 10th or above in the top 100.

[imported_Synozeer]

Originally Posted by You are not allowed to offer incentives to players to vote. That does not mean to say you can not give all players, even the players who have not voted, a reward if you come say 10th or above in the top 100.

Actually, you can't do that either. In the first draft of this rule you were able to, but now you're not allow to give rewards for anything to do with voting.

Synozeer

[Valg]

Actually, you can't do that either. In the first draft of this rule you were able to, but now you're not allow to give rewards for anything to do with voting.

Very cool news, Synozeer. I think this greatly improves the reliability of the data.

Other thought: What do you think about adding a "I found this review to be helpful/unhelpful" (Amazon-style) feature? For example, our MUD has dozens of reviews up, and a couple are of the "This MUD roolz. (n/t)" variety, whereas many others are quite thorough. It would be useful to me if I was browsing a MUD to be able to see "Helpful: 15 Unhelpful: 3" before I click on a review, to help guide traffic towards the better-written ones.

[Loremaster]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Feb. 13 2003,13:46) Other thought: What do you think about adding a "I found this review to be helpful/unhelpful" (Amazon-style) feature?  For example, our MUD has dozens of reviews up, and a couple are of the "This MUD roolz. (n/t)" variety, whereas many others are quite thorough.  It would be useful to me if I was browsing a MUD to be able to see "Helpful: 15  Unhelpful: 3" before I click on a review, to help guide traffic towards the better-written ones.

The sad truth is that even features like "I found this review useful" are targets of abuse. I remember seeing a series of posts where some moron was boasting about always clicking the OPPOSITE of what a reasonable person would select: Not Useful for anything that sounds like a fair and balanced assessment , and USEFUL L for obviously biased, bash-fests.

If I truly want a review of a book (I buy many, so I do this often) I read the 'official' review first, remembering that it will not likely point out flaws or other negative aspects; afterall, they ARE trying to sell the book. I then scan the user reviews; I feel that I can get a good sense of whether or not it was written intelligently with just a glance; sometimes the first sentence or two.

I respect Mud-Connector's use of a review format and that there is some level of accountability; they do not allow just anyone who logs onto the site to submit a review. That being said, even though there are a significant number of fluff and bash submissions here on TMS, I find *some* value in even those.

I understand why IMPs may wish to shield themselves from abusive former players who 'have an axe to grind', but even in those, I often pick up hints about the mud that ARE true.

Anyway, if it is an easy thing to implement, I would be all for adding the "I found this review usefull/not usefull" feature; if not, I don't think we will really be missing that much.

My 2 centavos' worth.

[Azhon]

No one answered me the last time I asked this, so I'll ask it again.

Does Achaea still give bonuses when players vote?

I cannot be bothered to create a char there to find out.

Somone must know.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Azhon @ Feb. 14 2003,02:15) No one answered me the last time I asked this, so I'll ask it again. Does Achaea still give bonuses when players vote? I cannot be bothered to create a char there to find out. Somone must know.

Nope. We stopped as soon as the rules were changed. We are sticklers for the rules and despite what some exciteable types might claim, we don't cheat.

--matt

[SimuBubba]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2003,01:44) Nope. We stopped as soon as the rules were changed. We are sticklers for the rules and despite what some exciteable types might claim, we don't cheat.

So it's safe to say that, even though this News item from Achaea was dated *after* the new policy went into effect, it's since been rescinded?

Originally Posted by ANNOUNCE NEWS #1195 Date: 1/20/2003 at 20:39 From: Sarapis, the Logos To  : Everyone Subj: the vote blessing Well, due to our complete domination of the Topmudsites list, many other MUD admins whined that they couldn't compete, so the owner of the site has changed the rules, and we can no longer give individual rewards for voting. So, intead, what we've done is set up a new system. It's detailed in HELP BLESSING. The only difference now is that instead of getting a blessing when you vote, everybody votes, and if, at the end of the day (the Orphean Serenade at midnight GMT), more then half the players active that day voted, everybody active that day gets the blessing. For you detail-hounds, what it actually looks for is how many unique logins there were that day from the first three fields of an IP (as Type MORE to continue reading (58% shown) 3180h, 3612m ex-more topmudsites only recognizes one vote per unique three-field IP address top stop people with dynamic IPs from cutting their connection, reconnecting, voting again, etc.). If there are votes from at least half those three-field IPs, then everybbody gets the blessing. Offering everybody unlimited free access is relatively expensive for us, and by doing this simple little thing, you help us out quite a bit in terms of getting free promotion for Achaea. You also help out yourself, and everybody else, so vote every day! Penned by my hand on the 5th of Glacian, in the year 325 AF.

Just curious...

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (SimuBubba @ Feb. 14 2003,12:50) Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 14 2003,01:44) Nope. We stopped as soon as the rules were changed. We are sticklers for the rules and despite what some exciteable types might claim, we don't cheat. So it's safe to say that, even though this News item from Achaea was dated *after* the new policy went into effect, it's since been rescinded? Originally Posted by ANNOUNCE NEWS #1195 Date: 1/20/2003 at 20:39 From: Sarapis, the Logos To  : Everyone Subj: the vote blessing Well, due to our complete domination of the Topmudsites list, many other MUD admins whined that they couldn't compete, so the owner of the site has changed the rules, and we can no longer give individual rewards for voting. So, intead, what we've done is set up a new system. It's detailed in HELP BLESSING. The only difference now is that instead of getting a blessing when you vote, everybody votes, and if, at the end of the day (the Orphean Serenade at midnight GMT), more then half the players active that day voted, everybody active that day gets the blessing. For you detail-hounds, what it actually looks for is how many unique logins there were that day from the first three fields of an IP (as Type MORE to continue reading (58% shown) 3180h, 3612m ex-more topmudsites only recognizes one vote per unique three-field IP address top stop people with dynamic IPs from cutting their connection, reconnecting, voting again, etc.). If there are votes from at least half those three-field IPs, then everybbody gets the blessing. Offering everybody unlimited free access is relatively expensive for us, and by doing this simple little thing, you help us out quite a bit in terms of getting free promotion for Achaea. You also help out yourself, and everybody else, so vote every day! Penned by my hand on the 5th of Glacian, in the year 325 AF. Just curious...

Of course. It was rescinded as soon as the second rule change went into effect. Synozeer made two rules changes:
1. Disallowing individual rewards, followed, a few days later, by:
2. Disallowing all rewards.


--matt

[Nevynral]

I find myself wondering how long it will be before some mud or another tries imposing penalties for not voting since rewards for voting are now against the rules.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Nevynral @ Feb. 14 2003,14:19) I find myself wondering how long it will be before some mud or another tries imposing penalties for not voting since rewards for voting are now against the rules.

Actually, when Synozeer and I were chatting about the rules, I considered bringing this up, but I figure, if you can survive as a MUD by punishing your players for not voting for you, well, more power to you. Our players loved getting the reward we gave them for voting, and I am still getting complaints from players asking why we had to remove it, but I'm quite sure that if it was a punishment for not voting instead of a reward for voting, we'd have an insurrection on our hands.

--matt

[Brody]

Nevynral says:

Originally Posted by I find myself wondering how long it will be before some mud or another tries imposing penalties for not voting since rewards for voting are now against the rules.

I'd think that'd end up backfiring on the MUD, causing its players to vote for *other games* out of spite. Players don't tend to do things on behalf of their MUD to avoid being penalized - they can log off and avoid penalties. They do respond well to being rewarded, one way or another.

[Santrilla]

But when you really get down to it, are the rankings all that important? OK, so you're at the top of a list, which means you're more likely to get more players in. But besides that, it's nothing but an ego-boost.

I'm not saying the rankings should be removed- I mean, they're an interesting indicator of each MUD's popularity. But all I'm saying is that there is more to life than hoarding votes.

...Anyway. Sorry, feeling a little hungover and needed a mini-rant

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by But when you really get down to it, are the rankings all that important? OK, so you're at the top of a list, which means you're more likely to get more players in. But besides that, it's nothing but an ego-boost.

Do you think mud owners add their muds to the listings for an ego boost, or because they want players searching for specific muds to come across theirs?

Do you think mud owners post adverts to the promotion forums for an ego boost, or because they want to attract new players?

Do you think mud owners pay for advertising banners for an ego boost, or because they want to draw more attention to their mud?

Top Mud Sites is one of the most popular mud sites on the net - I'd probably guess the second most popular - and it's main "feature" has always been the "top muds" list. A mud which is in first place is going to gather a lot more attention than one which just adds a banner - and unlike banners, it's free advertising. All you have to do is get your players to vote.

Of course if the voting is unfair, then so are the results - if you do something which encourages (say) 80% of your playerbase to vote, while someone else is only able to get 40% of their playerbase to vote, it really doesn't take a great deal of complex maths to work out that the voting is giving a poor indication of what it's supposed to.

[Tavish]

Originally Posted by Of course if the voting is unfair, then so are the results - if you do something which encourages (say) 80% of your playerbase to vote, while someone else is only able to get 40% of their playerbase to vote, it really doesn't take a great deal of complex maths to work out that the voting is giving a poor indication of what it's supposed to.

What exactly is it that the voting is supposed to represent?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Feb. 15 2003,08:58) Do you think mud owners post adverts to the promotion forums for an ego boost, or because they want to attract new players? Top Mud Sites is one of the most popular mud sites on the net - I'd probably guess the second most popular - and it's main "feature" has always been the "top muds" list.  A mud which is in first place is going to gather a lot more attention than one which just adds a banner - and unlike banners, it's free advertising.  All you have to do is get your players to vote. Of course if the voting is unfair, then so are the results - if you do something which encourages (say) 80% of your playerbase to vote, while someone else is only able to get 40% of their playerbase to vote, it really doesn't take a great deal of complex maths to work out that the voting is giving a poor indication of what it's supposed to.

You know, I get the feeling that people post in the promotion forums largely for an ego boost sometimes. If not, they're not thinking very cle