[the_logos]

A consistently highly ranked mud was recently removed from TMS for cheating to inflate vote totals (I won't name it, but I'm sure most of you noticed its sudden absence from the top 5).

The new cheaters are Dawn of Eternity. I mean, give me a break. It's almost insulting that these morons think anyone's going to believe they're legit when their website doesn't even have a vote button that is easily found, and when their mud has a whole 3 players online currently.

I've mailed Adam about them and I'm sure he'll remove them promptly. I suppose this post wasn't necessary but cheaters are irritating.

--matt

[prof1515]

I don't always agree with you Matt but this time I'm in 100% agreement.  Running advanced searchs for certain features, I've spotted several other MUDs on the listing that I would say have rather dubious claims.  I intend to check them out a bit more thoroughly before I send in calling them on it but, regardless, it's sad when you run a search specifying certain conditions only to find when trying out the MUD that those conditions don't exist on half the games that came up in the search.

Maybe it's just ignorance on the part of the games' administrators and they simply don't know what certain terms mean or maybe it's deliberate lying/cheating.  Either way, it's false advertising and a bit of a frustrating let-down after you get your hopes up expecting something else based on their claims....

Anyway, take care,

Jason

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by I don't always agree with you Matt but this time I'm in 100% agreement. Running advanced searchs for certain features, I've spotted several other MUDs on the listing that I would say have rather dubious claims. I intend to check them out a bit more thoroughly before I send in calling them on it but, regardless, it's sad when you run a search specifying certain conditions only to find when trying out the MUD that those conditions don't exist on half the games that came up in the search.

Yeah, that's quite annoying, I agree. Having said that though, it's quite possible that those conditions have changed for that mud (like playerbase size, PK rules, class-based to classless, or vice-versa, etc etc) and they just didn't think to update their listing. If that's the case, it's quite forgiveable I'd think, as there's no malice intended. Cheating on the votes, on the other hand, is a blatantly malicious act, since it's a competition to get the top spots in order to get more traffic to your site and there's no way anyone is pumping votes at the site with a clever script or whatever thinking it's a legitimate practice.

--matt

[Jazuela]

Great minds think alike I guess Logos. I e-mailed Synozeer about Dawn of Eternity maybe 2 or 3 days after the vote reset. I noticed they had around 167 votes, and their game info said they only have between 6 and 10 players online at any given moment.

I figured there were probably double that amount of players who actually played - though not playing at the same time - and concluded that there was absolutely no possible way in the world 20 people would be capable of providing their game with 167 votes in 3 days even if all 20 voted twice a day.

Given that the votes only represent only SOME of the players in the games they play - since not everyone votes - just not possible, ya know?

Hopefully Synozeer will investigate and either put the concerns to rest by stating it's legit, or remove the game from the list if it proves to be a case of cheating.

[Janus]

Yes, I'd noticed this happening too, posted a comment about it somewhere. It's getting a little irritating for someone with a bot to rack up the votes like that, particularly when it's impeding Imperian's rise to #1.

In seriousness though, it really is quite ridiculous to cheat like this, as apart from anything else said MUD is quickly outed and will probably loose more custom due to it establishing itself as not playing fairly. It also establishes hostility amongst those of us who work hard to provide a high standard of entertainment to such a level as to earn our votes fairly from the many loyal players whom choose to support us.

Try to earn the ranking. A lot of work goes into the MUDs up there legally, cheating cheapens the whole buisness.

Janus


Imperian

[the_logos]

Imperian's admins eat tuna that isn't dolphin-safe. If it gets to #1, the pandas will also go extinct. Stop Imperian Now. (S.I.N.)

--matt

[Jazuela]

I not only eat tuna that isn't dolphin-safe, I also eat dolphins.

Do I win?

[Janus]

Do not be fooled, SIN has been offically classified as the eighth deadliest thing in the world. Achaea's administrators are directly responsible for draining their players' souls in worship of their demonic mistress. It's in the small print of their Terms of Service, along with the blood of all customers' first born.

Support Imperian, save your soul.

[imported_Synozeer]

Thanks for the heads up everyone. It's been taken care of.

Adam

[Iluvatar]

Hmm, ever notice how Synozeer keeps growing Xs in his avatar? I bet he's keeping track of kills.

[Rytorth]

Originally Posted by I bet he's keeping track of kills.

What is it that he's killing that he wants to keep track of?

[Dulan]

Heh.

I find it vaguely ironic that the owner of Achaea of all people would be crying foul on people cheating.

Anyways, back to lurking!

[the_logos]

Why's that? I'm the resident expert on our games, and none of them have ever cheated, in any way. If you have information that neither I nor Synozeer have, I'm sure both of us would enjoy hearing it.

--matt

[Geras]

They cheat by having a name that sounds like Ayatollah and get the terrorist vote. *nods sagely*

[Dulan]

Exp for clicking on a link.

New rules about cheating/votes.

Enough said.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Dulan @ May 27 2004,23:55) Exp for clicking on a link. New rules about cheating/votes. Enough said.

Yes. Once the new rules were made, it became illegal. As we were in communication with Synozeer about those very rules changes, we ceased before the rules were changed.

Perhaps you're not aware of this, but if you were to outlaw smoking today, those who had smoked in the past would not become law-breakers retroactively. If you believe that's not the case, and that a change in the rules is retroactive, perhaps you should mail Synozeer and let him know that you believe we should be banned for something we did that was not against the rules when we did it. I'm sure he'll mail you back with an appropriate, and (in your case) unduly polite, response.

--matt

[Dulan]

-sigh-

And yet, you miss the point, as always, Sarapis.

It was only one MUDs (Group of MUDs?) actions that made it illegal.

I'd argue that it was because only one MUD (Group?) had the technical expertise and the will to do such a thing, but it'll rapidly become an exercise in circular logic likely. Either that, or you quickly jumping on the most convenient logical fallacy.

Either way, too much effort for no gain. -heads back to lurker mode-

-D

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by It was only one MUDs (Group of MUDs?) actions that made it illegal.

How odd. It was an open secret that many MUDs engaged in the practice. And as you say, it was made illegal. It wasn't illegal when we were doing it. Thus, anyone doing it wasn't cheating until the rule was changed. It's not complicated.

Originally Posted by I'd argue that it was because only one MUD (Group?) had the technical expertise and the will to do such a thing, but it'll rapidly become an exercise in circular logic likely.

Heh, the technical expertise required is trivial. Every MUD in the top 20 has it. There's little doubt we forced the change in the rules, but considering Synozeer knew about it for 6 months before the rules were changed, it obviously wasn't some big crisis. What's kind of amusing is that we get more votes now than we did then, and we don't offer rewards for voting anymore. We're just good at motivating our players to vote, as is Aardwolf.

--matt

[Hardestadt]

Oh my! Someone on a TMS forum going after Sarapis with little or no grounds for their baseless accusations?!

SOMEONE CALL THE NEWSPAPERS!

Leigh
CTO
Persistent Realms LLC

[Gacilly]

As a player of all of Iron Realms MUDs (especially Achaea) for a long time, I'd just like to say that they don't need to cheat, nor do they as most people realise anyway.

Why do they have 3 games in the top five? Because they run good, interesting games for people with all interests; because they work damned hard to make sure all issues are dealt with quickly and that their players are looked after and, most of all, they spend a lot of time developing new areas, events and games to make sure that the MUD boredom doesn't set in.

Go Sarapis! You're doing a good job!

[Janus]

Oh for heaven's sakes, enough of the baseless and vague accusations, Dulan. I was an active member of Achaea when the situation you mention came about, and in point of fact you are quite wrong about it directly giving you exp as well, it may well be a better idea to actually research accusations at one of the premier MUD providers before leaping in feet first.

At no time was Achaea, or any IRE MUD cheating and as the_logos says, the system was changed before the rules were. The fact that all three games are in the top ten is solely due to the level of support amongst players, achieved by immense hard work to make an enjoyable atmosphere. It's rather irritating for those who put in said work to be accused of cheating simply because they're successful.

If you're still doubtly, try visiting Imperian and playing for a while, you'll most likely find yourself as hooked on the immersive atmosphere as our very satisfied players are. You could even join the Wardens, which are the newest unique guild to be opened. And, once you are hooked, I'm sure you'll be making your daily click to vote for Imperian as well.

Yours,

Janus

[Dulan]

[quote=the_logos,May 28 2004,02:12]

Originally Posted by How odd. It was an open secret that many MUDs engaged in the practice. And as you say, it was made illegal. It wasn't illegal when we were doing it. Thus, anyone doing it wasn't cheating until the rule was changed. It's not complicated.

What MUDs, Sarapis?

Please list. I want to hear this. Also, note the "many". One is not many. Two is not many. Many implies, what, 10 or more? I want to hear this list.

Originally Posted by Heh, the technical expertise required is trivial. Every MUD in the top 20 has it. There's little doubt we forced the change in the rules, but considering Synozeer knew about it for 6 months before the rules were changed, it obviously wasn't some big crisis. What's kind of amusing is that we get more votes now than we did then, and we don't offer rewards for voting anymore. We're just good at motivating our players to vote, as is Aardwolf. --matt

Again, I said nothing about the top 20 MUDs and technical expertise. I specifically stated technical expertise -and- will. Or should I have used 'want' instead of 'will'?

Anyways, whatever.

Oh, and Sarapis? Call off your posse, kudasai. I'm not responding to them, nor am I going to fall prey to the logical fallacies they love to use. Furthermore, their actions in and of themselves are arguably a logical fallacy. I'll respond to valid points - which you, and only you, have made so far in this thread. All they are is useless noise with either restated points or regurgitated propaganda. Neither of which is useful or constructive to this thread.

-D

[the_logos]

No idea which MUDs. I just recall people stating that some MUDs would, for instance, offer game-wide xp bonuses and the like for getting to spot X on the list.

It's all irrelevant really. Cheating isn't cheating until it's breaking the rules. We have never broken any rules here. If you have evidence we did, by all means, present it here or to Synozeer. I'm sure he'll ban us if you're able to provide him with anything but content-less attitude.

I also have to wonder if you even know what "logical fallacy" means. I'm guessing not.

This thread is over for me unless you're able to come up with something besides your usual "I'm an angry teenager" rants.
--matt

[Dulan]

Originally Posted by No idea which MUDs. I just recall people stating that some MUDs would, for instance, offer game-wide xp bonuses and the like for getting to spot X on the list.

This is illegal? Syn must have changed the rules a bit ago, and while this was what I typed, this was not what I meant. I believe you knew that, but twisted my words intentionally. What had the forums in an uproar was Achaea's practice of rewarding the -specific- voting players an experience bonus. The reason? Because they voted. I honestly do not believe that anyone had an issue with the reason that you stated. No one that I can recall had a problem with mud-wide bonuses for some vague place on the list. And, after reading over my copies of the old flamewar, no one brought that up.

Are you using a logical fallacy in an attempt to avoid my question, Sarapis? I'm not flaming you here. I'm not attacking you. I'm asking a simple question. I'm -curious-. I want to know what other MUDs were using a method like Achaea's that rewarded a specific player for voting. You implied that was the case, and to the best of my memory (And my copies of the old conversations) this was the only problem that anyone ever had. Specificly rewarding people for their vote.

Originally Posted by It's all irrelevant really. Cheating isn't cheating until it's breaking the rules. We have never broken any rules here. If you have evidence we did, by all means, present it here or to Synozeer. I'm sure he'll ban us if you're able to provide him with anything but content-less attitude.

So, is killing a man with a previously un-thought of method not murder? Or at least manslaughter? This is a logical fallacy again. Just because X is not against the stated laws/rules/etc. does not mean it is not against it. Just as Medievia's actions are not in violation of the wording of the Diku license does not mean their actions are not in violation of the license. Or are you going to seriously try to argue that Vryce is not violating the Diku license?

Furthermore, my attitude is hardly "Content-less" currently. This is yet another logical fallacy, Sarapis. Rather, I challenge you to render it content-less. Prove me wrong. Show the 'many other' MUDs who cheated as Achaea as I stated previously. Please do, in fact. I am more then willing to offer an immediate apology and retraction of my words. However, due to PMs received from people on here, and my archives of prior flame wars about this, it appears that there were not 'many' MUDs. In fact, the only MUD discussed was Achaea.

In fact, Achaea may have used that system for 6 months, but once it came to the forefront on TMS, the problem was quickly resolved. Well, at least for TMS, it was quickly resolved.

Originally Posted by This thread is over for me unless you're able to come up with something besides your usual "I'm an angry teenager" rants.

Another logical fallacy, Matt. Actually, two in one sentence (Impressive!). While age is traditionally used as a low-blow on many MUD-related forums, I can conclusively prove there is no logical way for me to be a teenager. I've been MUDding for a bit over 13 years now (Started in '91!). If I started at 6, that means I'd be 19. However, the part of the world where I was when I was 6 lacked any sort of internet access. Using further logic, it is highly doubtful that any 6 year old would MUD - while possible, it is highly unlikely.

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you throw around that insult. Commonly, people throw around insults that they themselves find insulting - after all, why tell an Englishmen that he's a burke? Doesn't make sense to an Merkin now, does it? So, tell me, Sarapis. Why do you find the phrase 'angry teenager' insulting?

Really. I'm very interested to know that.

[Jazuela]

Actually Dulan, you're the one whose posts are rife with logical fallacies. Perhaps you don't quite understand what the term means? If not, I refer you to this website:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Logical_fallacy

Logos wrote that you are using the "usual 'I'm an angry teenager' rant." In no part of his post did he write that you are an actual angry teenager, but only that you are using an angry teenager rant to present your issues. One does not need to BE an angry teenager to present an angry teenager rant.

You started from a "false premise" and came to a "logical conclusion" based on that false premise, thus producing a "logical fallacy."

Hopefully you will now understand what the term means and either STFU with the phrase in every other sentence of your posts, or stop making logical fallacies yourself. Either will make me happy - and possibly many others who read this forum.

[Dulan]

Actually Jazuela, I'm meeting his own fallacies with more.

It aggravates that type of person to no end, and while you spotted the tactic, it is there for a purpose. And, also, the logical fallacies I used were not critical to the points made in my post. Unlike Sarapis' post(s).

If you really want to pick on something in my post, I'd recommend the wording I use. Or my grammar. Those are two valid points that you can nitpick at all you want. But if you are just going to nitpick me using Sarapis' tactics on himself, and in a context that is irrelevant to my main points, that's awfully silly . As well, my previous statement stands. If Sarapis can prove that my memory is wrong, I'll publically apologize and retract my statements. I'm _asking_ to be proven wrong, Jazuela. I do not think I am wrong, but I am admitting that I could be wrong. And if I am, I'll apologize! I have no problem with being wrong! I just want Sarapis to prove me wrong with facts, not make content-less statements and vague references!

-D

[Traithe]

Ahem.

At the risk of further derailing this thread, I wanted to point something out: a logical fallacy has nothing to do whatsoever with the truth of any premises used. It is rather only a quantification of the validity of the reasoning used to leap from a given set of premises to a given conclusion.

So, you were mostly correct, Jazuela. I just wanted to point out the important distinction.

Some examples of fallacies:

Premise: A -> B
Premise: B
Conclusion: A

Premise: A <-> B
Premise: C
Conclusion: A & B

And so on. Note that above A, B, and C could represent any proposition whatsoever - even ones that are true - and they would still be strung together in a logical fallacy, otherwise often called a "deductively invalid argument".

Thus, you can have a logically fallacious argument constructed with entirely true premises, entirely false premises, or any combination of the above. That's why they are so incredibly dangerous, and often hard to spot.

(Then again, by definition any argument containing a contradiction MUST be logically valid and/or free of fallacy, but I won't go there for today, heh.)

Sorry again to interrupt - stuff like this bugs me to an almost irrational degree; my emphasis during undergraduate was in logic, and one of these days if I'm lucky and/or wealthy enough I might try for a PhD in the subject to teach it.

[Edited for a few typos.]

[Traithe]

Feeling obligated to add something constructive to the discussion now that I've bored you with a lecture on the finer intricacies of logic:

I'm afraid in this case your arguments are completely groundless on an objective level, Dulan. Let me try to demonstrate why.

This entire fiasco started, I believe, because you took issue with Achaea's former practice of rewarding individual players with in-game benefits for votes they cast.

Sarapis has stated that they stopped this practice at or even before the point it had become codified in the TMS rules as "cheating". Assuming what he says is true, as I have not personally researched it, your continued insistence on the argument leaves us at the following point: even though there was no specific rule against it at the time, Achaea's practice was still cheating.

You have given, from what I have seen, two relevant analogies to back up your argument.

The first is the example of the individual who kills another individual in "a new and previously un-thought of" way - you claim this would still be an act of murder or manslaughter.

There are two possible contexts in which to view this situation.

1. There is, in fact, a law against murder and/or manslaughter PRIOR TO the situation. In this case, yes, it would be murder; laws against such things do not in fact classify the crime by the method (except when distinguishing between degrees, e.g. first degree or second degree murder); they distinguish the crime by the end result. If you kill someone with malice aforethought, regardless of how you have accomplished it, yes, you have murdered them.

2. There are no laws against murder prior to the killing. In this case, it would in fact NOT be murder, in a legal and objective sense; crimes are codified in statutes in our socities, and if your actions do not fall within the purvey of a statute then by definition you have not committed a crime. Whether or not you FEEL that a person has committed a crime is fairly irrelevant, in this context. Therefore, a murder has in fact not been committed.

Your second example is Medivia's well-known infringement upon the Diku license, specifically its head admin deriving no small amounts of money from its operation. You note that there is no specific provision in the license prohibiting such activity; only a clause generally preventing monetary gain. This analgy is more similar to #1 than #2 above; in this case there is a codified set of instructions prohibiting the end result that Vryce has achieved through his actions. Therefore, he is in fact breaking the license, regardless of the specifics as far as how he obtains his money or what he sends it on.

Now, bringing my analysis of these two analogies BACK to the original argument, one notices an important point. In both of these cases, the actions in question are only crimes (or a breach of license) if there is in fact a provision specifically prohibiting them PRIOR TO the act's commission.

Your attack on Achaea's former practice of rewarding votes is more akin to #2 in the first example; there was no codified prohibition of it at the time, therefore by definition it could not have been in violation of such. You still have strong feelings about the ethics involved, perhaps; but this returns me to my initial statement above.

Your disdain for their method of rewarding players and classification of it as "cheating" is groundless, in an objective and/or legalistic sense. You can feel -personally- (subjectively) about it however you like; but such feelings cannot carry a reasoned argument, and you should not expect to persuade others to adopt your view, when you cannot support it with fact and sound logic.

Whew. Okay, I'm done. See what happens when I try to contribute something constructive?

[Dulan]

In response to your comments, Traithe.

Simply put, cheating was not allowed at the time. Achaea forced the definition of 'cheating' to be widened. While that may or may not be cheating is irrelevant at this point - Simply put, it is ethically questionable. However, Sarapis then argued that 'other people were doing it, so it was okay!', and used examples that were not valid based on my points. I then requested specific examples that were valid to my points, and offered a public apology if he could provide them.

In essence, whether or not they were cheating is irrelevant. Sarapis gave his word that other people were doing it. He can back out, and state that he is a liar (With questionable ethics), or give proof, and force me to apologize.

As well, you are arguing that Medievia is not in violation of the Diku's license. (Read your post more carefully, bud. In the context of the post, you are claiming that they are not in violation of it.)

May want to walk carefully, son. Thems dangerous grounds here.

-D

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by As well, you are arguing that Medievia is not in violation of the Diku's license. (Read your post more carefully, bud. In the context of the post, you are claiming that they are not in violation of it.)

Actually, if you genuinely believe that to be the case (and you're not simply attempting to bait me or deliberately misconstrue my points), I'd highly recommend brushing up a bit on your comprehensive reading and/or deductive reasoning skills. However, if you'd care to provide the specific deductions and/or inferences in question, I'd be happy to clear them up for you.

Originally Posted by Simply put, it is ethically questionable.

Precisely my point. Your argument is ethics-based, not rule-based. Ethics-based arguments rarely have any objective quantifiers, which is why they are such quagmires. If you'll re-read my post, you'll note we are in agreement here; my only argument was that since your argument appears to fall back on an ethical point of view, which may or may not be shared and cannot at any rate be rationally assessed with regard to other viewpoints, there is really no way to logically persuade others to the same position.

Finally:

Originally Posted by Sarapis gave his word that other people were doing it. He can back out, and state that he is a liar (With questionable ethics), or give proof, and force me to apologize.

Yes, I believe that excellent site Jazuela pointed out earlier gave a very concise definition of the "bandwagon" fallacy. While it's regrettable his memory has prevented him from giving any specific names, and he's admitted as much, I fail to see how that by definition makes him a liar. It's quite possible that he's acting in good faith, you know. At worst it probably weakens the credibility of his argument, and it should be interpreted accordingly.