[the_logos]

One of our users has come up with a way to do one-click voting for TMS if you're using Zmud. I'd imagine that's nothing new as there are a lot of clever Zmud scripters out there, but I thought I'd post it here for everyone else to give to their users if they wish, or for other users to use it as they see fit. Obviously, replace the initial url with whatever url you send people to in order to vote.

#url http://www.achaea.com/irex/tmsvote/vote.php
#var Voting 0
#until (@Voting=1) {#var Voting %DDE( iexplore, WWW_GetWindowInfo, 1)
#if (%left(@Voting,30)="http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi") {Voting=1}}
#DDE iexplore WWW_OpenURL {javascript:document.click.submit()}
#unvar Voting
#dde iexplore www_exit


I don't actually use Zmud so haven't tested this myself, but I'm assured it works. What's interesting about this is that combined with a trigger to gag text is that Zmud-using players can create, on their own, the ability to turn off automated voting reminders after having voted.

In other words, whether Adam interprets his rule as allowing voting reminders that the mud turns off after you vote, or requires us to spam all users with vote reminders, a good portion of players are able to turn off the vote reminder after they vote regardless of what the mud itself does.

(Waits for the inevitable, "So let's ban all in-game vote reminders!" followed quickly by a slew of posts saying, "Good luck enforcing that with any kind of consistency at all.")

--matt

[Tavish]

Originally Posted by What's interesting about this is that combined with a trigger to gag text is that Zmud-using players can create, on their own, the ability to turn off automated voting reminders after having voted.

I would be rather shocked if many players didn't simply gag the reminders even if they haven't voted.  Unless the automated reminders are dynamic in content the scripts to do so would be extremely simple.  I would guess that the main roadblock stopping people from adding a gag ( out of those with the inclination to do so) is simple ignorance of the client's capability.

[John]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 17 2004,13:12) In other words, whether Adam interprets his rule as allowing voting reminders that the mud turns off after you vote, or requires us to spam all users with vote reminders, a good portion of players are able to turn off the vote reminder after they vote regardless of what the mud itself does.

What would also be interesting is if a script was made to make it so it will automatically remind players every 12 hours to vote. This would allow players who play muds that don't send messages in-game about voting, to have this functionality added if they so wish. Having the script multiple times would allow them to be reminded to vote in multiple listings.

[Jarrad]

Greetings,

Now Matt has posted the zmud script lets hope all the rest of you quit your petty rubbish, its quite simple people, spend more time helping your players and get a player base big enough to strip Achaea from top place. All this rubbish is just silly, it is so western world tall poppy syndrome. Matt doesnt get good votes because he advertises in game, he gets good votes because his players enjoy the game, the good immortal staff and the atmosphere.

I have taken this even one step further and set it on a zmud #alarm so it auto-votes if I havent in the last 12 hours. Simply add an alarm that fires at a time you know you will be online.

*snuggles and hugs to Zmud*
Signed

Goryan Ath'loren

[Wik]

Testy posts always go over better when it's by someone who only has one post. And how does this alleviate anything, exactly? It's certainly a benevolent gesture to the voting community, but how does it connect to the current controversy going on? If the rules need to be clarified, then they need to be clarified.

[imported_Synozeer]

In-game reminders are fine so as long as they don't stop when the player votes or something else happens that's due to voting (such as reaching the top 10). These reminders must be independant from anything to do with voting. You can set it to remind players once a minute if you'd like - it's the reward aspect that is against the rules.

As far as this script goes, does it take the player to the Top Mud Sites website by opening a browser window? If it opens a page up, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it just votes and closes the window, or doesn't open a visible window, then it would not be allowed. Those voting must be able to see the main page of the site, otherwise there's no benefit for the site and the muds on the list.

The reason why I don't have an issue about autoclicking the "Yes, I wish to vote for this site" is because the only people who are using this script are those who want to vote. In this instance, it's fine. However, you cannot do this with a vote button on your website, because there was no conscious effort to agree to vote for the site except for clicking the button, which people will do even if they don't want to vote (curiousity, wanting to see other muds, etc).

Adam

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by As far as this script goes, does it take the player to the Top Mud Sites website by opening a browser window? If it opens a page up, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it just votes and closes the window, or doesn't open a visible window, then it would not be allowed. Those voting must be able to see the main page of the site, otherwise there's no benefit for the site and the muds on the list.

Yep, that's exactly what the script does. It opens, votes, and closes. It's completely undetectable and completely outside the control of anyone but the end user.

And, as a user described in that other thread, you don't even need reminders from the mud to do it. I've so far heard reports of it being used in all of our muds, Armaggedon, Aardwolf, and Feudal Realms. What's the point of banning something that literally cannot be enforced?

--matt

[imported_Synozeer]

If it's entirely an end-user thing and independant of the mud, there's no problem with it, since a user can choose to vote how they would like to, as long as they don't try to get around the once every 12 hours rule. I thought that the script was used in conjuction with the mud itself.

The only way to prevent this sort of thing would be to fix it on my end, and I'm not sure if that's even possible.

Adam

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Synozeer @ June 18 2004,17:13) If it's entirely an end-user thing and independant of the mud, there's no problem with it, since a user can choose to vote how they would like to, as long as they don't try to get around the once every 12 hours rule. I thought that the script was used in conjuction with the mud itself. The only way to prevent this sort of thing would be to fix it on my end, and I'm not sure if that's even possible. Adam

Yeah, it's all resident in Zmud. I don't think it's even possible to prevent it, as you said, due to the fact that it's just pulling up a web page, clicking for the user, and closing the web page.

--matt

[Angie]

But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

[John]

Oh I didn't know it automatically did it for muds that don't get the messages. I also don't like the fact it doesn't send traffic to TMS. Getting rid of that last line though appears that it would fix that.

What language does the script use? Any particular language or a special scripting one just for it?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (John @ June 18 2004,20:52) Oh I didn't know it automatically did it for muds that don't get the messages. I also don't like the fact it doesn't send traffic to TMS. Getting rid of that last line though appears that it would fix that. What language does the script use? Any particular language or a special scripting one just for it?

It's in Zmud's scripting language.

--matt

[Terloch]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 18 2004) I've so far heard reports of it being used in all of our muds, Armaggedon, Aardwolf, and Feudal Realms.

Nothing of this sort is being used at Feudal, as we don't have any sort of tracking script or proxy page running that would even generate anything for a user, please don't go lumping us into things.

[imported_Synozeer]

I just want to clarify something I said earlier:

Originally Posted by In-game reminders are fine so as long as they don't stop when the player votes or something else happens that's due to voting (such as reaching the top 10). These reminders must be independant from anything to do with voting. You can set it to remind players once a minute if you'd like - it's the reward aspect that is against the rules.

This means that you CANNOT display different messages based on whether someone has voted or not. If you're showing a "Please Vote" to someone who didn't vote, and not showing it to someone who did vote, I consider that against the rules. It has to be an all or nothing thing if this rule is going to work, which means NOTHING can be influenced by whether someone voted or not. If you're on the ranking list and currently doing this, you'll need to stop.

Adam

[the_logos]

Erm, yes it is, as one of our players apparently plays your game and does it on your game. Keep in mind that you don't need a tracking script, or anything at all from the mud in order to use this script or a variation thereof. It's entirely resident in Zmud. I wasn't accusing any muds of anything. =) Heck, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it anyway.
--matt

[John]

Aaah. For the confused (e.g. me) what it does is it creates a button that when pressed, votes. It doesn't have anything to do with reminders or anything.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (John @ June 19 2004,00:17) Aaah. For the confused (e.g. me) what it does is it creates a button that when pressed, votes. It doesn't have anything to do with reminders or anything.

Right. The same idea embodied in the button could be created to vote on receipt of a particular message from the website though. I'd imagine that since we have to spam users with vote messages whether they've voted or not now, a good portion of them will be using Zmud to gag the vote messages if they've already voted.

--matt

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ June 18 2004,20:39) But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

This is indeed a problem since it means a mud is receiving votes and ranking (and therefore benefiting from TMS) without actually sending traffic to TMS (which benefits TMS, its member muds, and advertisers).

Perhaps a possible code fix could be done via the referrer tag and only allow a vote for a certain mud if the source of the packet was the domain name of the mud.

For example, any vote for UberMUD would only count if the referrer came from *.ubermud.com (assuming that is their domain).

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by (Synozeer @ June 18 2004,23:29) It has to be an all or nothing thing if this rule is going to work, which means NOTHING can be influenced by whether someone voted or not. If you're on the ranking list and currently doing this, you'll need to stop. Adam

Hey,

I'd like to publicly state that I'm extremely disappointed you've arrived at such an unreasonable and illogical conclusion.

There's absolutely no coherent reason mandating that a rule of prohibition be absolute in order to be effective. The best laws are those which recognize that there are exceptions in every situation, and make room for them as best as is possible - in this case, that exception would be one allowing a reasonable, unintrusive, and entirely useful voting reminder once per gaming session. As we have discussed before, no reasonable person could honestly call freedom from a two-line reminder once per gaming session a "reward".

If what you said about a rule being useless and unenforceable unless completely absolute were true, there would be, for example, no self-defense exception to murder laws, nor would judges have any discretion in handing down sentences at post-conviction hearings.

The fact is, as the creator of the site and the final arbiter of the rules here, you have the power to define them as you wish - exceptions included. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever in the enforceability of the rule if you chose to include reasonable exceptions to allow practices such as ours to continue.

Needless to say, I don't really see the sense in this decision. As the owner of the site, of course, you're free to decide as you wish - and for as long as we use your service we will abide by your rules.

As a longtime supporter and user of your site, though, I just wanted to voice my disappointment over the matter. I really do hope you'll at least consider the possibility of making such an exception to the recent rule clarification.


T.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ June 18 2004,20:39) But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

So much for all those 'eyeballs' all that traffic was supposedly sending to TMS.

[the_logos]

Just going to add my whole-hearted support, as the person who sends the most traffic here, and who is currently the biggest advertiser, to everything Traithe said.

--matt

[Beren]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ June 19 2004,08:59) Perhaps a possible code fix could be done via the referrer tag and only allow a vote for a certain mud if the source of the packet was  the domain name of the mud. For example, any vote for UberMUD would only count if the referrer came from *.ubermud.com (assuming that is their domain).

Personally I think a better fix to stop people using
automated scripts, bots or anything like that
and actually make you visit this website when
voting would be to add a random word as a gif file that the
people need to supply in order to vote.
This is done when registering with many popular sites
(check out registering for a yahoo e-mail account) and it is
reasonably safe.
(Even though I am certain some coding wizard can code an AI script to figure the word out   )

The whole point of this site is that people when voting are
exposed to all the other MUds available out there. If you are
confident that your work is good enough that should not scare
you at all and you should actually welcome it and do nothing
to prevent it

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Beren @ June 19 2004,04:29) The whole point of this site is that people when voting are exposed to all the other MUds available out there. If you are confident that your work is good enough that should not scare you at all and you should actually welcome it and do nothing to prevent it

That's definitely the point! Traffic to this site, however, would drop like a rock if people had to type in a random series of letters every time they wanted to vote.

--matt

[Beren]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 19 2004,11:43) That's definitely the point! Traffic to this site, however, would drop like a rock if people had to type in a random series of letters every time they wanted to vote. --matt

Probably Matt, but it will at least stop clever scripts like the
one you presented that started this whole thread that actually
beat the point of this site.
So it is a matter of quantity of traffic over whether the actual
traffic fulfills it's purpose (or at least has a chance of it).

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Beren @ June 19 2004,05:08) So it is a matter of quantity of traffic over whether the actual traffic fulfills it's purpose (or at least has a chance of it).

Yeah, it's a judgement call, no doubt. I advertise here though, and I've got no issue with the current traffic. If the script use became widespread enough and we saw our traffic from topmudsites drop, I'd get concerned. Until then though, the patient is healthy.

--matt

[John]

I noticed something interesting. Matt says that as long as he sends eyeballs here, he should be able to use any method he wants. A rule is clarified saying that he is no longer allowed to use the voting reminder mechanism he was. So then he makes a post telling everyone about a script that was made by a player that lets people vote without sending eyeballs here.

I normally don't have a problem with Matt and a lot of criticisms are made about him that (IMO) are unfounded. 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. But I bet he's relying on the fact that the rule will be changed long before it becomes too much of a concern, because if use of this script becomes wide-spread, Synozeer has more of a problem then Matt as people will stop advertising on his site.

Just seems like a very big co-incidence.

[Aardwolf]

I have never been comfortable with cross-referencing player's i/p addresses from the link on the website with their i/p address in the game to determine who did and did not vote. I could not see a situation in which I would need that information that did not cause me to at least behave or feel differently towards people that did and didn't vote, even if I didn't actually act on it. Not to imply that other MUDs haven't found valid and perfectly "legal" uses for this information, it just doesn't work for me personally.

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.

As for whether or not players are using scripts to vote, I cannot address that as it is off-mud and I have absolutely no way to know even if I had the inclination to try.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[the_logos]

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but how is that sending different output to people based on whether they've voted or not? Do they not get a message if they've voted?

--matt

[Aardwolf]

No, they can vote without setting the timer, or they can set the timer even if they haven't voted. There is no cross referencing to any kind of i/p logs to say whether or not someone has voted and players turn if on/off as they choose. To me, that is very different from a 'hey, why haven't you voted?' reminder that is checking their i/p address against the i/p addresses from the web site. It is more of a generic timer.  In fact, it might not be a bad feature to turn it into a completely generic timer where players can 'alarm' themselves with message Y in X hours.

As a side note, I don't particularly see anything wrong with what you and Traithe are doing in terms of TMS. My reasons for not cross referencing the i/p logs has nothing to do with 'validity of traffic' to TMS, I just feel that for me personally it crosses a privacy boundary.