[the_logos]

New discussion forum for admins of muds with at least 50 simultaneous players on daily: www.ironrealms.com/mindseye.htm.

You can see the bios of our current members at mindseye.ironrealms.com. If you're fence-sitting about whether to get involved, we hope the high quality of our membership, as evidenced in the required Biography, will convince you to join.

Forum traffic is very high signal with almost no noise. It's been useful enough that we've already made changes to our Rapture engine based on posts in the forum. Come join!

--matt

[jediwannabe]

i think we've heard enough about your uber forum with its uber participants. why are you even bothering to post here anymore? Aren't you like, too good for tms?

What no public archives!?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by What no public archives!?

Nope - they've already answered that point:

"...if you don't actually run a large mud you've not got much to contribute to a forum that is specifically for the concerns of larger muds. Experience in whatever we're discussing is what matters to us and if you don't have the experience of running a larger mud then there's not much reason to have you in the forum."
-- The_logos

"Of course those issues are important to people starting a mud. But the people starting one do not have any experience HANDLING those issues and therefore their presence would not be helpful to the other members. That doesn't make for a very mutually beneficial relationship."
-- Threshold

[Delerak]

That's just so #### silly.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 22 2003) Nope - they've already answered that point:

Err I meant publicly read-only archives.  I understand the contributing requirements are limited by mud size and level on the mud.  

[Delerak]

Apparently not, this is a very elite forum for the mudding community. I'm glad I am not participating.

[Deathwing]

Originally Posted by Apparently not, this is a very elite forum for the mudding community. I'm glad I am not participating.

How could we forget? People with that attitude keep posting something to this effect EVERY time the_logos starts a thread. We know you hate the idea of his forum. We know you don't like him personally. Yes, Kavir, we're all impressed at how you can quote old posts. Either get over it, say something constructive, or just don't say anything at all, and his threads will go away faster.

[Stilton]

Originally Posted by Yes, Kavir, we're all impressed at how you can quote old posts.

Well, this time he quoted the wrong ones. Tyche asked about the absence of public archives, and received quotes that were taken from a justification of not making the membership/posting requirements more liberal.

The answer to Tyche's question is that, as was stated in the earlier thread, the members want to be able to discuss topics that they don't want to immediately become public knowledge (coming changes to their games, plot arcs, etc.)

Stilton

[Delerak]

Originally Posted by (Deathwing @ Dec. 23 2003,10:18) How could we forget? People with that attitude keep posting something to this effect EVERY time the_logos starts a thread. We know you hate the idea of his forum. We know you don't like him personally. Yes, Kavir, we're all impressed at how you can quote old posts.  Either get over it, say something constructive, or just don't say anything at all, and his threads will  go away faster.

Bleh, what is that supposed to mean? Are you actually passing judgement on my attitude through a text-based form of communication? I could care less what the_logos does, I personally think it's a silly idea, and if I wanted to bash the fellow I would, I'm simply stating my opinion. If you're going to defend him then go ahead, but who are you defending him from? I am completely neutral in all aspects of this time-wasting thread.

[Deathwing]

I mean only exactly what I said. Please re-read and ponder a bit more if you think i'm trying to persecute you personally, as i'm not.

[Delerak]

Well you quoted my post in particular. And my post was just an opinion on how I feel about elitist mud admins.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Well, this time he quoted the wrong ones. Tyche asked about the absence of public archives, and received quotes that were taken from a justification of not making the membership/posting requirements more liberal.

Actually the first was, you're right - but the second was fairly appropriate. The discussion went like this:

Threshold: I think I would find it more beneficial to discuss issues like the above with people who have DONE those things and have had to deal with those issues on a large scale.

Me: Absolutely - those are the sort of things which are of significant importance to any starting mud. Unfortunately the only people able to ask such questions are those who no longer have much need for the answers. Indeed, those who would really benefit from such advice won't even be able to read the forums.

Threshold: I think you missed my point here. Of course those issues are important to people starting a mud. But the people starting one do not have any experience HANDLING those issues and therefore their presence would not be helpful to the other members. That doesn't make for a very mutually beneficial relationship

Originally Posted by Deathwing wrote: People with that attitude keep posting something to this effect EVERY time the_logos starts a thread.

And you keep barking like a loyal lapdog every time they do.

[Threshold]

KaVir, we've known each other virtually for a very long time. I think there is a good deal of mutual respect between us (at the very least, I know I have a great deal of respect for you).

I would appreciate it if you would not take my quotes from one thread and post them in another thread in which I am not a participant. Further, your quoting was completely out of context. All of your quotes of me were part of the discussion of membership requirements, not the issue of publicly readable archives.

I am not interested in getting into flame wars here and you make it very difficult to avoid them when you take my words and post them in a thread that I would otherwise not participate in.

If I had chosen to participate in this thread and said something contradictory to something I posted in another thread that would be one thing. But I had not participated in this thread at all and you quoted my posts totally out of context. Further, you made it sound as if I was an authority on The Mind's Eye when my only involvement there is as reader and member.

So now, because I was quoted repeatedly, I am dragged into a thread I did not want to get involved in.

It still boggles my mind why this is such a big deal to people. Perhaps the membership requirements are not perfect. Perhaps people would benefit if the forums were publicly readable. On the other hand, perhaps the membership requirements are helpful and perhaps keeping the forum private makes the members more comfortable about what they post.

The issue of making the posts public was discussed and there were 2 reasons why it was decided against.

1) Admins wanted to be able to post things they were planning on their games that they did not want their players to know about yet. Publicly readable forums would make that impossible.

2) The attitude people have towards the forum makes it highly likely that rabble rousers would copy things from those forums and then post them here or at TMC in order to start flame wars. Nobody was interested in providing such food for the trolls. That also benefits the TMS and TMC forums since it means less troll posts on their forums.

[Deathwing]

Sorry, Kavir, try again. I do not and never will have any involvement whatsoever in any of Matt's games or projects - I speak for myself, and nobody else.

I'm sorry if you feel that opposing the constant flaming of someone makes me a "loyal lapdog", but if that's what you want to think, I can't stop you.

My basic point remains. Please try and re-read it again, if you don't understand what I was getting at. So far, i've been accused of making personal attacks and now, of being Matt's personal lapdog/defender, apparently. The real point, however, was basically:

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Or only say it once, at least. The rest of us aren't in danger of forgetting how Matt is apparently hated, and it's getting really grating to read the same flames over and over and over every time he starts a thread.

And yes, I can already hear you saying "But the other side does the same thing!". I'd appriciate it if you could at least come up with a less childish reason why it's necessary to constantly (and publicly) bash Matt and his projects, though.

Anyway, despite all this, Merry Christmas to everyone