[Dunestalker]

I think the ruling is a good thing and completely disagree with Traithe and the_logos. Nothing should be affected at all by whether or not you've voted.

[Estarra]

Two questions.

1. What's the difference between the zmud script opening and closing a window to vote, and the voter who closes the window immediately after he or she voted? It seems to me that is the sort of voter that this zmud script is designed for. Many, many people just want to vote for their MUD but who don't really browse the site (no offense).

2. What's the logic in the rule that forbids MUDs from turning off a reminder message after they voted? I understand it wouldn't be proper to penalize players for not voting, but turning off a reminder message to remind a player to vote when he or she has already voted seems logical to me. Certainly, I think it is a stretch to call this a "reward" for a player (or a "punishment" for those who don't vote). At the very least, it lets the players know that the MUD administration isn't so dense and incompetent that they can't tell who has voted or hasn't voted.

I feel that while rules are necessary, there's a line that is crossed at some point where the rules appear to demand that players who vote must live in a vacuum.

Just my opinion, of course.

[Traithe]

Heh, the latter is precisely what I've been saying all along, Estarra.

Unfortunately, we don't quite seem to be getting through to anyone.

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is one that comes to mind...

[Molly]

Originally Posted by -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John, June 19 2004,06:28 But for me, this is deliberate. He's saying "fine, if we're not allowed to remind only those who don't vote, we won't send eyeballs here but still gain the benefits of being ranked on this board." Now in his defence he can say he didn't make the script, but he did bring it to everyone's attention and the fact that he is also harmed by this. ------------------------------ the_logos, June 19 2004,13:25 And instead imagine what people like Molly would be saying had I NOT brought it up, and someone else did instead, pointing out that it's being used by players of our mud (and no doubt conveniently ignoring the fact that it's being used by players of other muds too). It's going on whether I bring it up or not. Which would you prefer? --matt

Well, people like Molly would probably say, that the apropriate thing to do would have been to privately alert Synozeer of the existance of the script  being used commonly on his own and some other muds, instead of publishing the exact wording of the script that totally defeats the intent of the list, and thereby more or less encouraging everyone reading the board  to use it as well.

Especially after all the talk about the importance of 'eyeballs'.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ June 19 2004,17:35) Well, people like Molly would probably say, that the apropriate thing to do would have been to privately alert Synozeer of the existance of the script  being used commonly on his own and some other muds, instead of publishing the exact wording of the script that totally defeats the intent of the list, and thereby more or less encouraging everyone reading the board  to use it as well.

Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script, that would accomplish what when it became more widespread? Make us look like we're hiding a "secret" way to get votes? I know #### well some people out there would have tried to spin it that way.
--matt

[Angie]

Much like a parent, you are responsible for what your little ones do...

[Molly]

Originally Posted by the_logos  June 19 2004,20:47 Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script, that would accomplish what when it became more widespread? Make us look like we're hiding a "secret" way to get votes?

I can well believe that was your motive for posting it. What I still don't understand is why you presented it as a magnanimous gift from you to the list.

I mean, look at the heading of this thread:

Originally Posted by Topic: One-click Zmud voting., Here's a script. Enjoy!

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ June 19 2004,20:55) Much like a parent, you are responsible for what your little ones do...

That's nonsense, and it's only the worst kind of mud admin that treats his or her players as if they were children. Parents are responsible for their children because the children are not capable of making responsible decisions. Most mud players are not children, and if they are, they sure aren't the mud operators' children. They're intelligent adults. Don't patronize them by treating them as if they're kids just because you're the operator of one of the services in their life.

Outside of a game, a mud operator is absolutely not responsible for what people who play his mud do, anymore than the car mechanic he takes his car to is responsible for said person driving drunk and killing someone later.
--matt

[Angie]

Well, it wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from the TMS rules.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ June 19 2004,22:27) What's the logic in the rule that forbids MUDs from turning off a reminder message after they voted? I understand it wouldn't be proper to penalize players for not voting, but turning off a reminder message to remind a player to vote when he or she has already voted seems logical to me. Certainly, I think it is a stretch to call this a "reward" for a player (or a "punishment" for those who don't vote).

I should point out that it is quite common for certain software applications to be free - but with adverts at the top. However frequent users can (and will) then pay to get rid of the annoying banner/s.

Now if people are willing to shell out cash to get rid of that annoying advertising, don't you think they're going to be even more willing to spend a couple of seconds clicking on a voting link to get the same result? The result is therefore a form of reward (you no longer get spammed) which skews the result just as much as any other.

Some muds may only send the voting message once per day, or once per 12 hours, but (until the rule clarification) there was nothing stopping other muds from spamming the player once an hour, or even more frequently. Imagine having a mud which placed the request in every room description, or at the beginning of your prompt, or spammed it once per minute.

Like Dunestalker, I agree that the rule clarification is a good thing. Trying to make exceptions is generally a bad idea - better by far to have clear guidelines that can't be bent, because it's clear already that people are more than willing to bend the rules as much as they can.

Of course just as a rule clarification in a mud is going to upset those players who benefit from it, so the rule clarification here has upset those mud admin who were benefiting from it. The_logo's was upset when he had to stop rewarding players for voting, so obviously he's going to be equally upset now that he has to stop spamming those who don't - but in the long run, I think it's the fairest solution.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 20 2004,02:47) Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ June 19 2004,17:35) Well, people like Molly would probably say, that the apropriate thing to do would have been to privately alert Synozeer of the existance of the script  being used commonly on his own and some other muds, instead of publishing the exact wording of the script that totally defeats the intent of the list, and thereby more or less encouraging everyone reading the board  to use it as well. Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script, that would accomplish what when it became more widespread? Make us look like we're hiding a "secret" way to get votes? I know #### well some people out there would have tried to spin it that way.

I agree with Molly on this one - your post seems to be little more than spiteful retribution against Synozeer's decision.

Try to put yourself in his shoes. If there was a nasty bug on your mud, would you want the player who found it to email you with the details? Or to post it on your muds discussion forums so that all players could exploit it?

I think showing a little more respect might be appropriate.

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 19 2004,20:47) Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script...

This is false. The script would be trivially easy to guard against if it posed a problem.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 20 2004,11:28) Of course just as a rule clarification in a mud is going to upset those players who benefit from it, so the rule clarification here has upset those mud admin who were benefiting from it.  The_logo's was upset when he had to stop rewarding players for voting, so obviously he's going to be equally upset now that he has to stop spamming those who don't - but in the long run, I think it's the fairest solution.

What annoys me is the inanity of it all. It's not going to change Achaea's position as always #1 or #2 just like ceasing to reward people who voted didn't change a thing.

Oh, I'm also informed by Synozeer that thanking your playeres for voting is illegal because a thank you is a reward.
--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 20 2004,11:31) Try to put yourself in his shoes.  If there was a nasty bug on your mud, would you want the player who found it to email you with the details?  Or to post it on your muds discussion forums so that all players could exploit it?

We used to work hard to fight against scripting in combat in Achaea. We eventually realized that as there is no possible way to stop it (at least not in ways that don't also screw over people who aren't using scripts and auto-responses), we may as well embrace it. Before the realization, we tried to keep the "exploits" regarding scripts off the boards. Now, we don't care where they're discussed? Why? Because I'm not up for tilting against windmills.

The fact is, people are using the script and unless Synozeer implements something that makes people enter a little code upon voting, ala Yahoo registration, there's nothing he can do about it.

And, in any case, he said the script was ok as long as it's run entirely by players.

--matt

[imported_Synozeer]

Originally Posted by And, in any case, he said the script was ok as long as it's run entirely by players.

While it is okay for it to be run entirely by players, it should not be promoted by the muds themselves. Posting the voting code in a public forum wasn't the best move when trying to make people vote legitimately.

On another note, some think it would be "easy" to prevent these scripts from working. That's incorrect. Here's why:

1. I'm not a programmer (I dabble with coding, that's all).

2. New scripting changing will come out to defeat the safeguards I would have put in place, thus forcing me to constantly tweak the code, run tests, do research, etc. I simply don't have the time for this.

3. I can have a say on how the muds work with voting, but I don't have a say with the players.

Remember when I made the ruling a while back that muds couldn't offer incentives? One of my hesitations was that it was going to require a lot more of my time to police. You guessed it, it does, and I find that I don't have the time (or inclination) to spend X hours a week researching accusations. That's why I do nothing about it anymore unless I'm sent proof, links, logs, etc. I allow those making the accusations to do the research rather than I. Helps weed out the large amount of "I know they're cheating - there is no way they could get that many votes" emails that I get.

Adam

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by While it is okay for it to be run entirely by players, it should not be promoted by the muds themselves.

Perhaps yet another rule change is in order then, as if it's legal for a player to do I hardly see how it's illegal for a mud to encourage players to do what's legal.

I'd say you'd need a rule making the practice by players illegal (though they can't be caught), and then yet another new rule banning muds from encouraging players to do anything illegal.

And then we'll need some official interpretations regarding what constitutes encouraging. For instance, what if the mud has links on its website to websites that link to pages that include the script? Is that officially encouraging?
--matt

[Yui Unifex]

Originally Posted by (Synozeer @ June 20 2004,15:21) On another note, some think it would be "easy" to prevent these scripts from working. That's incorrect. Heres why:

In regards to the technical and time points you raised, you have an entire community of capable coders here. I'm sure at least one of them would be more than happy to help out if you requested =).

[Molly]

One more thing about scripts and links to vote placed in the mud itself:

If you adapt some logical thinking to the mechanics of the list, I think you'll realize that it is not at all in the interest of a Mud owner that the players, who vote by clicking a link from his/her own site, (or even from inside the mud itself as some apparently do), actually VISIT this webpage. Quite on the contrary; they would prefer it if the player just clicked the link and got the voting over with as soon as possible, preferably without even looking at the list.

Why? Because obviously they have already GOT that player, since he/she voted from their mud. So they have absolutely zilch to gain by the player starting to  browse the list. Because if they do, they might just become curious enough to try out another mud, and maybe even find that they liked that one better than the one they originally came from.

The only 'traffic' to the page that the Mud owners are really interested in is the one that comes to the site by OTHER routes than their own voting link, for instance through search engines, because those are potential new players for them. Obviously they are also interested in their own position on the list, because these potential new players are very likely to first choose from the muds on the top of the list.

Hence the last line on the script that started this thread, which closes the window immediately upon voting.

And this is also why I think it would be interesting to know if any of the existing voting links from inside muds have this same 'feature' too. Maybe someone should check that out, because if this is the practice, that too is something that should be outlawed.

[gth]

An advertiser's possible perspective:
----------------
Let's say I advertise on TMS.

I pay money for a banner, and examine the statistics links that are on offer about how many unique visitors there are to the TMS website. My confidence grows, knowing that large numbers of people will see my banner - until I stumble across this 'one-click voting' thread...

It is here I find out those statistics don't mean squat -- my banner isn't even being seen by any of those script-kiddies... and that leaves a rather bad aftertaste.
-----------------

I don't want to raise advertising in general as a major derailment of the topic, however anyone who pays for advertising may understandably think the statistics of 'unique visitors to the site' are inflated with people who vote-and-close without even viewing the page.

Hopefully most of those same advertisers realise that TMS is going to have some statistical skew since they *are* a ranking site. Anyway, just figured the vote-and-close mentality should bear in mind the TMS income stream.

*goes back to lurking*

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 20 2004,11:28) Some muds may only send the voting message once per day, or once per 12 hours, but (until the rule clarification) there was nothing stopping other muds from spamming the player once an hour, or even more frequently. Imagine having a mud which placed the request in every room description, or at the beginning of your prompt, or spammed it once per minute.

I think this is a patently specious argument in that we all know any MUD that spams players with vote reminders every few seconds and places vote reminders in room descriptions would not be a MUD that survives for long or could possibly retain any new players. My point was simply that it makes sense not to remind players to vote if they have already voted. I disagree with your opinion that this dramatically "skews" results, but I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by (Aardwolf @ June 19 2004,09:41) What we do have on Aardwolf is a command that players can type which basically says "In 12 hours time, remind me to vote". After they type that command, 12 hours later they get a reminder. I guess this technically is sending different output to people based on whether they voted or not, but they have to opt-in to it, it can be turned off at any time and it is not monitored.

Assuming this isn't an "outlawed" practice, would allowing a player to configure a vote reminder to not remind him or her if he has already voted be acceptible? In other words, it would be player controlled and not admin controlled, yet part of the MUD system. This seems like a practical compromise to me if anyone is interested in compromise positions.

[Aardwolf]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ June 20 2004,19:30) Assuming this isn't an "outlawed" practice, would allowing a player to configure a vote reminder to not remind him or her if he has already voted be acceptible? In other words, it would be player controlled and not admin controlled, yet part of the MUD system. This seems like a practical compromise to me if anyone is interested in compromise positions.

It is important to clarify - what I listed is nothing more than a 'remind me in 12 hours' timer. It has no visibility of whether or not a player has actually voted.

I *think* what you suggested still cross-references the clicks on your vote button with player ip addresses - but only if they opt-in for it. Not that I think yours is a bad idea, I just want to make sure that if what we do is deemed "outlawed", it is done fully understanding what we're doing and not lumped in with any ban on checking player ip addresses against web logs.

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ June 20 2004,19:30) Assuming this isn't an "outlawed" practice, would allowing a player to configure a vote reminder to not remind him or her if he has already voted be acceptible? In other words, it would be player controlled and not admin controlled, yet part of the MUD system. This seems like a practical compromise to me if anyone is interested in compromise positions.

This is where we're at currently while I wait until this thing dies down and Synozeer comes up with a definitive ruling.

Since I didn't want to bother tearing out the entire system when the issue doesn't quite seem to be settled, I added in a simple toggle instead; this way, players can turn the voting reminders on and off as they so choose.

[Terloch]

I'm pretty sure he's already come up with a definitive ruling on this, and the rules page has already been updated.

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (Terloch @ June 20 2004,21<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]I'm pretty sure he's already come up with a definitive ruling on this, and the rules page has already been updated.

Forgive me if I'm dense, but I don't think there is a definitive ruling.

The rule states, "You cannot display different messages based on whether someone voted or not, or reward a player for voting by not showing messages."

The grey area is whether it is outlawed to allow players to configure voting reminders, including configuring said reminder not to remind that player if he or she has already voted. Therefore, it is the players who are choosing not to have a message displayed based on how they configured their voting options. It seems to me that this is allowable under these rules, and keeps to the spirit of the rules in that the rules appear to be aimed at allowing players to remind themselves (or not) however they wish without interference, pressure or incentives by the MUD itself.

Anyway, that's my interpretation, and apparently others appear to interpret that rule likewise. If there's general disagreement, then I don't think it is completely out of line to ask for clarification.

[imported_Synozeer]

I think it's best to keep the automated voting reminders that differentiate whether someone voted or not separate from the mud. If it's allowed, I can see muds then setting the default for it to be on. If not that, then muds might spam reminders to turn the default voting reminder on until it's turned on.

I'd rather not open up the door to another whole subsection of rules, so let's just say mud reminders that work based on whether someone voted or not are not allowed, regardless of whether the player opted to show them on a mud or not.

However, if you want to have mud reminders that don't work differently when someone votes or not (for instance, showing a message every hour even if you voted), that's fine.

Adam

[Crom]

This all shows the futility of competing against pay-to-play muds who have a financial interest in being within the Top 10. The mud I'm involved in (AVATAR), encouraged players to vote for a few months to see how hard it was to be there and it was tiresome to all involved.

Although the system is quite cool and being listed as a top site draws additional players to our mud, I'll leave it to you folks. Achaea is quite right in stating that his playerbase is free to do what they want until it is changed. Like anything, unless there is code to prevent it...rules will only be followed by those who care.

- Crom

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by An advertiser's possible perspective: ---------------- Let's say I advertise on TMS.

No need to be speculative about this. I'm the biggest advertiser on the site right now, and I have statistics on how many people sign up for Achaea and cite Topmudsites as where they heard about us.

Keeping in mind that we regularly purge our database of inactive characters (which may mean inactive for as little as two days if that character has little playing time), we have 143 characters in our database that were created in the last 7 days that heard about us from TMS. 346 in the last month. 548 in the last 90 days. 1142 in total. 347 of those from the total are customers.

Stats for Imperian and Aetolia are about the same, proportionally, given the difference in size between Achaea and the two of them.

In short, there is nothing at all wrong with viewers coming from TMS. It's a fantastic source of focused traffic.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ June 21 2004,01:30) Originally Posted by (KaVir @ June 20 2004,11:28) Some muds may only send the voting message once per day, or once per 12 hours, but (until the rule clarification) there was nothing stopping other muds from spamming the player once an hour, or even more frequently.  Imagine having a mud which placed the request in every room description, or at the beginning of your prompt, or spammed it once per minute. I think this is a patently specious argument in that we all know any MUD that spams players with vote reminders every few seconds and places vote reminders in room descriptions would not be a MUD that survives for long or could possibly retain any new players.

Well as I pointed out in another thread, you wouldn't spam the newbies - you'd wait until people had been playing for a while and then start spamming them. Some of the larger muds are able to pressure players into buying expensive donation equipment - persuading them to vote twice per day would be simple by comparison.

Originally Posted by My point was simply that it makes sense not to remind players to vote if they have already voted.

Which at first glance is a perfectly reasonable idea. The problem is that it opens so many new doors to abuse.

Originally Posted by I disagree with your opinion that this dramatically "skews" results

It skews the results because a much larger percentage of the playerbase are likely to vote, simply to get rid of the spam. Thus a mud with a smaller playerbase might end up with a far higher ranking than one with a large playerbase, simply because the latter mud doesn't pressure the players into voting.

[Alastair]

Perhaps it is time to start considering ranking pay-for-play MUDs on a separate list from the free ones...

[Traithe]

Okay, for the record -

Even though I still think it's a shame that an innocuous (and, in my opinion, ethically legitimate) usage of vote tracking such as ours was caught in the crossfire here, I've updated our code to comply with Synozeer's new rule clarification. Our voting reminders are no longer dependent on TMS vote tracking - and I will probably leave in the recently-added tweaks allowing folks to toggle the reminders on and off, for good measure.


T.