This is for that fringe minority who spends most of their time on the boards flaming people, and specifically Iron Realms. Instead of taking so many threads off-topic by turning them into flamefests, go ahead and vent your vitriol here. You'll probably sleep better at night and won't be so grumpy when awake.

--matt

Some of them are scared that 10% ruin it for the rest of them. They seem to think Iron Realms is that so called 10%.

If you don't like our criticism of your topics, choose your phraseologies more carefully, Matt. And anyone who thinks that Iron Realms is anywhere close to the majority of the community here... well, I am very very sorry for you. : p

Back to posting on other threads, though.

I'm just going to put in my 2 cents here, and see what happens...

First of all, I'm not a great fan of IRE, but then again, i'm a picky mudder... I've played pretty much every mud thats made it up to the top 20 in the last year or so, and havn't liked many of them at all. But in my mind at least, any mud that constantly makes the top 5 every month running for who knows how long must have something going for it at least.

Now, as for all this free versus paying debate... I'm going to stand with Matt on this one, all IRE muds are FREE TO PLAY. No where in the muds is there a point at all which you MUST pay money. His topic about new payment options was purely an optional service provide faster advancement for player skills, by buying credits. Nowhere does it say that a player MUST purchase these credits to play the mud, thus making it a FREE TO PLAY mud.

Now, I don't know anything about these aleged threats or anything, but for the moment, for all i don't particularly like Iron Realms Entertainmets muds myself, my support is behind Matt for this.

Farewell,

Midnight Zion, Eternal Shadow

So to recap, in IREs model you can log on for free but will be facing people who have paid money to get ahead, and will be solicited for such a payment yourself.

In the model for a game like Carrion Fields, you can log on for free and never even have the option to pay anything, anywhere, nor will you ever be up against anyone who has gotten ahead by means of their wallet.

How would you suggest aknowledging this distinct difference between the two models, if both are allowed to simply call themselves "free"? Recognizing that there is limited space in an advertisement, so drawn-out explanations aren't practical.

As has been stated by Matt's own admins in the forums of his games he likes to argue. I suspect this thread serves no purpose other then to provide Matt a bit of entertainment.

As a IRE customer,playing all four of their MUDs(especially Achaea),I would like to say that all of their MUDs are free to play.If a player chooses to spend money for credits,that is his choice.
Personnaly I bought credits only once(for achaea) and I would do it again if I had the money(I am a college student).But this is besides the point.
My point is that IRE games are great and free to play.
As far as the flaming,let me also add my two cents to it.
I haven't been a member of the TMC for very long,however everytime IRE is posting a news or something,there is always a guy from Carrion Fields that starts to attack IRE.
And to be completely honest,I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THAT!!!
And as I see Carrion Fields to be the culprit as far as flaming goes,I am done even remotely trying to play Carrion Fields
GO IRE!!!!!

I dunno, I'm not sure pointing out that a free MUD has extra payment options is really an attack. It's just one of those funny things, like jumbo shrimp or fighting for peace.

In your webpage, it is specifically said that

Now, this is clearly different from MUDs that are trully 100% free to play and do not contain any solicitation for money from the staff, is not it?

Further down your site's page we find

,

which could be read as, eventhough every bit helps, you should donate larger amounts of money to us. (I guess this is a valid way to read, as much as free-to-play can be read as free-to-obtain-everything-that-everybody-else-gets-even-if-they-bought-things -with-rl-money).

At the end, comercial and non-comercial ventures require money to be run. There are different models for both and it has been said before that the problem is not with labeling two different models differently, but with doing so in an inaccurate way that would harm either of the two ends. The problem is that if you want to be accurate, you cannot do it with simply the addition of a couple check-boxes, furthermore, only the MUDs in the first page (if even those) will be policed for accurateness of their description, which would mean much more annoyance to the list owner. I believe Matt has said a couple of times that he would be willing to add a full description of their economical model, but he was behemently against new labels that would send the wrong message to the potential players of his MUDs.

On top of this, if it is true that the great majority of the comunity does not really care about MUDs where you can pay to advance or get perks, then it would make much more sense that this same comunity had discussions on Role-playing, H&S design, combat styles, etc. The reality is that except for a couple of people (not more than a handful), like Brody and now and then KaViR, nothing is discussed about any of these, much more important, subjects. So, what we have here is just a concern for having someone else using my words, in a way that is accepted by most people (not the posters of these threads though) in everyday life (Go to a Publix supermarket if you live in the US and check how many 'Buy-One-get-One-free' you find).

Lastly, I believe someone had mentioned that Matt had only supporters among his staff or players. I am none of those, and I believe I even have had priv-messages exchanged before with the person making this claim, explaining this was so. This is not only a poor way to try to undermine arguments but a clear way to show that even with knowledge of a fact people choose to hide it if it would serve their purposes to attack someone else.

Have a good day

* bold-italic added by me.
** bold-italic text added by me.

Been playing Aetolia for a little over 3 years now. I'm not one of the movers and shakers in the realm, but I enjoy a small measure of recognition in the world. Guess that puts me on the pro-IRE side.

I greatly enjoy IRE games, and I can't see how anyone would say that they "suck", honestly, as even if you dislike them it's quite obvious they're head and shoulders above most other mp roleplaying games out there, including graphical MMOs.

Not to say I think Rapture is holy or that I have a shrine to Matt at my house or anything. Honestly if I was to write a MUD engine I'd do things quite different from the way Rapture is, in particular I've always been rather irritated at how the combat is almost entirely based upon the affliction -> cure system, I find it a pain to deal with and easily turned to the benefit of people who concentrate more on game mechanics than on actual roleplay. Mob bashing is quite dismal in my opinion as well.

Of a much lower irritation factor to me is the fact that I would really like to see a really top-notch sci-fi MUD, all the other choices out there are simply dreadful. IRE should be the company to blow the lid off SF MUDding, but they're continually putting out medieval-fantasy type games.

Having noted all these things that irritate me, I will note that I do intend to continue to play Aetolia and that overall I find that IRE is a notch above the other choices out there. Before I found Aetolia I couldn't find a MUD that would hold my attention for any length of time. That's saying something there.

I'm not one of Carrion Fields' staff nor do I play it (though, like the IRE games, I've tried it). And I myself find Matt's description of his games as deceitful.  I also find Matt's tone toward other MUDs to be disrespectful and conceited and having tried his MUDs, he doesn't have any grounds to be conceited.  I've played over 850 MUDs and while the IRE games probably end up ranked in the top 10% of them, that's only because the bar is so low.  Compared to the best MUDs I've found, IRE's games aren't that impressive.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is the dishonest way in which they advertise their games (kudos to Lusternia for not advertising itself as "free to play" like the other three do) and the way in which Matt attacks anyone that he feels threatens his little business.

I was first drawn to read the forums when a Matt started his attack on other MUDs over "IP theft" using Shadows of Isildur as his example.  While he claimed righteous motives, I suspected from the tone of his posts as well as his targets that he was more motivated by the fact that a new (and genuinely free) Tolkien-based MUD was doing quite well in the rankings at a time when interest in Tolkien was high due to the cinematic release of the LOTR films.  This was something IRE games couldn't do:  use a theme like LOTR because a commercial company, as opposed to a free game created out of love of the theme and the medium, IRE'd have to pay for the use of the name/theme.  Matt knew lots of MUDs do it and never had a problem with it.  But suddenly, IP theft became an issue for Matt and his attacks began.  He felt both jealous and threatened, the latter of which he's displayed repeatedly since then toward anything he perceives as hurting his selfish attempts at manipulation of TMS.

All the while, he continues to pretend he's somehow a representative of the community and a "professional" while those he attacks are "hobbyists" and thus not equals or important.  And when he fears that those who actually think about the MUD community above their own interests make suggestions for changes that he perceives might harm his own selfish interests, he lashes out at them as "hobbyists", "the minority", and threatens to use economic leverage against the site admins.  He'll take his ball and go home if everyone can't play by his rules.  And that's why I don't like him.  He's a lying, selfish, conceited, no-talent ass.

And maybe he should take his ball and go home.  So I'll make the offer right  now.  How much does IRE pay in advertising to this site per year?  I'll match it if honesty in advertising is required (ie, Viagra MUDs have to be honest about what they are:  pay-to-succeed) in the listings.  If Matt throws a hissy-fit and pulls IRE's advertising dollars from TMS, it's no big loss for the site (and certainly not for the MUDding community) as they'll still get their money (even though my MUD won't be anywhere near ready for years).  But maybe it's just time to call his bluff.

Take care,

Jason

So in other words, you'd like to bribe Adam in order to make changes to the site that fit your own desires, right?

Funny. That's just what I'm being accused of, albeit without any evidence. Oh, the irony.

--matt

Yes, Spoke; I sometimes make silly generalizations and leave out a word or two, but I've explained in PMs the point - which still stands. Many people, from many MUDs, with different goals/economic models/etc for their games argue against the way IRE handles things. The number of non-IRE players/admins who defend Matt's side is very, very small in comparison. There is a reason for that; and that fact is brought into light by me to negate Matt's ridiculous claims that those that are actively against some of his shaky ethical decisions are some sort of "fringe minority". I will try to remind myself to be very specific in the future when countering his ridiculous claim, so that we don't get into this portion of the debate.

No, it's not a bribe, it's eliminating your ability to threaten. I'm not getting anything out of the deal as I have no MUD to advertise and won't for at least two years.

However, the fact that bribery is the first thought that occurs to you says something about your character. But we already knew that anyway.

Take care,

Jason

From dictionary.com

Bribe: Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

That's what you are offering to do with Adam: Pay him money so that he will change his views or conduct.

The fact that you're not getting anything out of it just makes it an even more blatant bribe since there's no exchange of money for anything but that change of view or conduct.

--matt

It'd be a bribe if I said, "I'll pay you to change the policy." What I'm saying is that if IRE yanks their ads in response to a change in policy, I'll pick up the difference, thus eliminating any economic considerations that such a threat would pose to making an honest decision on whether or not to implement any such changes to the advertising policies.

It's you, through threats of pulling your advertising dollars, who've turned what should be payment for ads into bribes to maintain policies directly benefiting you.

Time to change your diapers, Matt.

Take care,

Jason

P.S.--Matt, this discussion is called "IRE Sucks" so unless you're going to post about how IRE sucks, you should avoid it.

Wow, your gall is neverending, and the irony continues. Here you sit, accusing Adam of accepting bribes, on the very board that you use for free. And, of course, while doing it, you help Adam make more money by generating more ad impressions for him to sell.

Attacking the site owner is just pathetic. If you don't like the way Adam runs things, why not just leave instead of accusing him of accepting bribes because he doesn't see things your way?


--matt

Now who's engaging in libel?

I didn't accuse him of taking bribes, I'm accusing you of trying to use advertising payments as bribes. You keep trying to turn this away from the simple fact that you're a dishonest piece of #### who's probably wetting his pants right now at the thought that one of your points of leverage, threats, might be neutralized.

Now run and have someone change those diapers. You're really starting to smell (worse).

Take care,

Jason

If he's not taking bribes, we can't be bribing him. In order to bribe someone, someone else has to take a bribe. If he's not accepting bribes, we're not bribing, and as we're not offering bribes, I know he's not taking them from us.

Either he's taking bribes, or we're not bribing him. (It's the latter for those of you just tuning in.)

--matt

It's exceedingly unfortunate that you've permitted this discussion to degenerate into fecal insults, Prof. By all means, present an argument, but if you feel the need to gain leverage by making ill mannered jokes at the expense of others, you've already lost, and cost the community some degree of maturity.

Re-read my post yet again, this time concentrating on the [b]bold, underlined part[b] rather than the growing puddle beneath your feet. And then consider this definition as well:

Take care,

Jason

So, if Adam isn't being bribed, what's the hubbub about? Since he's not taking bribes, whether we advertise here or not doesn't affect the policy, in which case I have to wonder why you care so much and why you keep bringing up that we spend advertising dollars here.

Oh, and if you believe we're engaging in blackmail, why not come out and accuse us of it? I assume you have the evidence to back it up. That's an awfully serious accusation though, I must say. Might want to think twice, particularly given that under US law, ceasing to advertise in no way whatsoever constitutes blackmail.

--matt

Degenerate as a result of insults? As opposed to every other insult the_logos has thrown out in this and nearly every discussion he participates in? Please, there's nothing wrong with a little toilet humor when addressing an ass. The two naturally go together. And there's no "leverage" through its use. It's purely humor. As for maturity, his original post threw all semblence of that to the wind.

Take care,

Jason

Please direct the same tone towards the_logos. I'll refer you to the post(s) he made to create and sustain this thread, all of which are rife with insults. I can also cite any number of recent threads in which he does the same thing.

As for the advertising issue, I'd be more willing to buy ads on a site that had a system that was more fair to our game. Presently, I'm unhappy with how our designation as "Free" is diluted by being lumped in with pay-for-perks games.

I didn't say you weren't attempting to use your ads as bribes.

If you don't intend to pull your ads, fine.  Then don't pull your ads.  Point is that if you do, Synoozer's still going to get the same amount of advertising revenue.  That's my offer.  It's not a bribe no matter how much it scares you.

As for alienating you, how would that influence traffic to the site unless you boycotted TMS or used other methods to influence your players not to frequent the site?  That sounds like a threat since it requires actual effort on your part to hurt the site.  Pretty petty and vile to threaten the site owner for considering how he runs his own site.

Jason

I fail to see how an ad can be a bribe. Adam gets no values from our ads directly. Adam gets value from money we pay him for the ads. If we're attempting to bribe him, what are we attempting to bribe him with, exactly? It can't be the money we spend on advertising, unless you want to accuse Adam of taking bribes.

So what is it we're attempting to bribe Adam with, if not money for the ads?


Yes, it would alienate people like me and would probably cost him dollars due to lost traffic in the long run as a result because a split list is of less value to large MUDs, and large MUDs are what bring the traffic to this site. 7 of the top 11 MUDs here either sell access to the game or sell virtual items. It's in Adam's best interest, and only makes logical sense, to cater to the MUDs that do the most to make TMS work.

Why would I need to pull our ads? We've already agreed that Adam isn't taking bribes, so his policy can't be dependent on our ad revenue, as that would constitute a bribe. Therefore, what would make him change his policy? A dozen forum posters, out of thousands of TMS users? I think not.

--matt

It most certainly can be a bribe if your intention is to purchase advertisements not only to attract players but to contribute money to the site and hence inflate your company's value to the site.  That makes is an attempt to use the advertisements as a bribe on your part even though Synoozer is accepting the money legitimately for services rendered.  Hence he's not taking bribes, but you're attempting to use advertising dollars as bribes.

Are you really that stupid?  I don't think so.  Dishonest, yes.  Stupid no.

Take care,

Jason

Is it a bribe or isn't it? A bribe requires two parties. There can be no bribe unless one parties gives a bribe and another party accepts it.

If it's not, then why do you keep insinuating that Adam maintains his current policy based on receipt of those advertising dollars?

If it is, then you're accusing Adam of taking bribes.

--matt

A bribe may require two parties but it does not require two consenting parties. It only requires one party to attempt it. That's all.

It's not that hard a concept to understand. You must be desperate if you continue to feign this degree of ignorance. *chuckle* Idjit.

Take care,

Jason

So are you saying we're bribing someone? Why not just come out and say it? Be a man. Make a solid accusation.

--matt

The only way to stop IRE or any such trolls from posting, would be to remove the 'latest topics' thread from the front of the TMS web site (it's okay, I know that's not going to happen).

I gave up on these forums long ago, since they're just a tool to get one's MUD higher than position one on the rankings page and the unscrupulous have been putting their name at that position for years - and currently their name is up there twice.

Sorry to go off topic here, but since the topic is neither particularly interesting nor well argued I don't feel a great deal of regret.

I just wanted to reply to this post to say that this isn't actually to do with the Rapture engine or language, it's just how the IRE games were designed and coded. Rapture itself is actually quite flexible and combat could be implemented entirely differently using it if the coders so desired.

One thing that has been on my to-do list for a long time is writing better AI for mobs to make bashing more interesting.

What do you know about being a man? You're a child and one that throws tantrums when others question you or disagree and one who has trouble telling the truth. You probably wet your pants several times a day at the thought that Synoozer might make any change to this website and you'll be required to be...*gasp*...honest! I don't think I've encountered anyone as insecure as you.

And if you improved your English skills, you wouldn't have to repeatedly ask the same questions after they've already been answered nor would you have embarassing incidents like that "duely" error you approved on one of your ads, forcing you to lie (rather poorly given your vast experience at it) about how you deliberately approved a typo.

Take care, you pathetic, insecure idjit.

Jason

In other words, you don't have the balls or the evidence to make an accusation of bribery against us and were just making things up.

I knew you'd back down once challenged to actually lay out your accusations in factual terms.

--matt

I have two points simply because I'm detail-oriented (translation: anal).

1. Bribes don't require two people. It doesn't require the bribed party to accept the bribe. Try offering $50 bucks to a police officer the next time you get pulled over and see if him not accepting it helps you avoid a bribery charge. Bribery is a crime of solicitation. Just offering it is criminal, regardless of whether the other accepts it or not.

2. To the poster who pulled some random text off CF's website about donations and tried futilely to throw that in their face. I'm surprised at the lack of logic of that post or that anyone didn't call them on it. Pay-for-perks is not even close to donations. Let's briefly break it down:

Pay-for perks: Log on for free
CF model: Log on for free

Pay-for-Perks: Gladly solicits money from players for advancement opportunities within the game
CF Model: Reluctantly solicits money from players for OPERATING COSTS of the game with no in game benefit

Pay-For-Perks: Players can reach maximum potential only by the addition of perks purchased with cash
CF Model: Players can reach maximum potential completely free of charge

I think the more level heads on this forum are simply asking that some differentiation be made between Free to log, pay for perks and Free to log, Free to advance.

Thanks for your time.

Got yer back CF.

That's known as attempted bribery, a different crime from actual bribery. Attempted only one person gets charged, bribery both do.

Not all pay-for-perks limit max advancement to only those that spend money.

IRE doesn't(granted it's a lot harder, but possible), and in Ilyrias we are making it even easier(in some ways) to max out without spending money. At the same time we are doing some things, that will be 100% needed to be a good combatant, that money has no effect on.

In general, you were right about the differences between the two types. Though, you could have just said PfP vs 100% Free.

IRE does allow for players to advance levels and advance their characters without spending money.It is surely very hard to do so(I am actually doing it right now,as I don't have the money to buy credits)

IRE does allow for players to advance levels and advance their characters without spending money.It is surely very hard to do so(I am actually doing it right now,as I don't have the money to buy credits)

Ha! What do you know about facts? Do you even know how to spell "facts" or do you toss in an "e" and spell it "faects" so it'll "turn heads" and make more people want to read your nonsense?

Again, if you read my posts again you'll see I've already stated my case. Oh, wait. You a) don't have the English comprehension skills necessary, b) are off pretending you're running your little "business" instead of actually sitting in front of your computer wetting your pants and whining, and c) can't see the screen what with your head so far up your ass.

You're really pathetic. How you can honestly think you're a professional is beyond reason. Now run along back to your own little VIAGRA MUD forums, play-pretend you're a "businessman", and have someone change your diaper before you wet it again. Wait! Probably too late for that.

Take care, you ignorant little child,

Jason

Matt, you must be thoroughly enjoying all this free publicity. I think I finally understand why sometimes you provoke these attacks. Though I can't quite understand why other people seem to feed them.

Though I will honestly say, I'm really tired of hearing about all this, regardless.

Nope, sorry. Bribery is the offering only. You are "bribing" them. That's a crime of solicitation, same as subornation of perjury. It's a crime just to offer it.

Accepting bribes is its own separate offense.

I've refuted that line of attack a few times, which is why I didn't bother with it yesterday, but here goes:

1) Maybe once a year, we remind players via our website that, hey, it'd be cool if they sent us some cash, but no worries. The vast majority of players never send us anything. Those that do get a thank-you email, and we'll offer a CF webmail account or similar out-of-game convenience. They get nothing in-game (in agreement with our license), and indeed the staff has no way to connect PayPal donations to specific characters, since we don't collect any RL personal information in-game.

2) We never interrupt gameplay with these solicitations. Part of this is because we're roleplay-required and it would break the "fourth wall", and part of it is because our players would riot and throw rocks at us if we annoyed them like that.

3) In the past, when player donations did not meet operating costs, members of the CF staff just quietly footed the bill out of pocket. Our players will attest to the fact that they have never been threatened with shutdowns, reductions in service, or other coercions.

You can't get more voluntary or optional than that. This isn't unique to CF by a long shot, of course, and all we're really asking for is an accurate label that communicates the above to prospective players.

Got Jealousy?

Got Bias?

Funny how you don't make a remark when Matt uses the same tactics.