Look around your apartment, dorm-room, or house. Now, ask yourself, "What's missing?" Yes..yes..you're almost there. Ah hah! You've got it haven't you? Glamdring, the sword of Gandalf the Grey! But curse it all, that thing is infuriatingly hard to pin down.

Achaea to the rescue. For a mere 1000 golden sovereigns you may purchase a lottery ticket at the Delos lottery office that will give you a chance at winning a real-life replica of Glamdring. Check out for details and a picture of the sword. The drawing is Saturday at 5 pm GMT.

--matt

And this from someone who recently got very sanctimonious about a Mud called Shadows of Isildur infringing on the IP of the Tolkien estate.

I take it that Achaea has acquired te written consent of the Tolkien estate to use teir IP in their advertisments? Just a bit weird that they forgot to mention this in connection with the offer on their website. But no doubt that was just an oversight, that will immediately be rectified? Right?

I don't see why he should be getting consent just to offer a Tolkien-related item as a prize for an event...

I don't think he would need consent if he was advertising this within their own game...to their own players...on their own player boards/forums...

However:

The post here is an advertisement, in a public forum,  for both game and lottery connected to it.  Using Tolkien items for those who create a character in their game, collect some text-based gold and then turn it over for a "ticket?"

Sounds like using Tolkien in an advertisement to me.

The last comments really don't even deserve reply, but I can't help myself... hands won't stop... typing continues. What an immature way to try to make yourself feel good about attacking someone. Words of advice: Lurk a little longer and find something with real substance before jumping out.

Before replying, go find a case where advertising a legal personal possession to be given or raffled away constitutes IP theft.

Vesper: He wouldn't need consent to give away or advertise an item he is giving away anyways. He didn't MAKE the sword, call it Glamdring and try to sell it. He purchased the item from a licensed company and is giving it away. Big difference. It would be no different than him advertising giving away his Ford Expedition (not saying he drives this) in an online raffle. Would he need the consent of Ford? I seriously doubt it.

Agreed with Kaylus1 - and logos and I didn't exactly see eye-to-eye on the whole intellectual property and MUDs debate. He's not selling tickets for RL money, as far as I can tell, and the sword is made by a licensed company.

Those embarking on this little crusade are just driving home the point logos made when he announced he wouldn't be involved in discussions here anymore.

Unfortunately there are quite a few hobbyists on this forum who will tear into a commercial MUD professional for any reason whatsoever, as aptly demonstrated here.

All I can say is thank god for MUD-Dev.

Leigh
CTO

Hardestadt, I think you'll find the dislike of the_logos has nothing to do with him being a commercial mud owner, but rather the extreme negativity of the majority of his posts towards the rest of us.

When you go around tearing into other people, many of them will indeed look for any excuse to hit back. That is human nature, and has nothing to do with the fact that he is running a commercial mud.

I agree heartily with KaVir. There's a number of commercial MUD people who post here and don't attract that kind of attention. By his own admission, Matt started flame-y posts just to provoke people. Afterwards, he cried "Alas! Poor me!" when it turned out that people do not like being provoked.

I've rather enjoyed his absence. It's nice to have threads without someone butting in and adding "Well, I've ALREADY perfected the concept of the multiplayer game, as anyone but YOU ZEALOT MORONS can plainly see. Anyone who has played my games and found them HORRIBLY GENERIC is clearly an IRRATIONAL BEING who RUINS these boards by LOWERING the relative amount of MATT content!"

Then obviously you've missed the numerous aggressive posts Matt has made.

And another point to remember: Loyalty to the person who owns your codebase is understandable. But blind loyalty to someone who is a self-confessed troll is unlikely to make you many friends.

Hardestadt wrote:
So let me understand what you are saying.  Those who think differently from Matt are socialists?  Or is it only those who speak up?

The only person who wrote anything that could be remotely interpreted as an 'attack' on Matt on this thread was Sinuhe; whose only 'crime' consisted of pointing out that Matt himself had been critical of another mud for doing something similar.

I'm more than happy that muds like Achaea thrive commerically, it is a reminder and an encouragement to all of us that the world of text games still has a viable future.

But please, spare us the name calling and the right-wing paranoia, okay?  There's enough of that in the world already.

By socialist, I'm referring to the ideal certain people have that muds have always been free, were meant to be free, and that anyone who profits from them is a greedy scumbag.

If you want to see the socialist arguments I'm referring to instead of presuming that I'm making some wide reaching insult, go read the thread that I linked to. It has exactly what I'm talking about, and is not what you've presumed I'm talking about.

I'm not 'name-calling' or spouting 'right-wing paranoia', but I'm trying to evoke some sort of civility in you people.

In future, please read before presuming.

Casting doubts on the viability of paying $10k plus "significant royalties" for a mud engine, when there are several other perfectly good choices available, is hardly the same as claiming that muds should be free. Indeed I even stated later in the thread that "I have no problem with people running commercial muds. My interest here lies purely with the licensing issues of the Rapture engine".

Kavir! For gods sake, do yourself a favor and read the entire thread.

Obviously I've read the entire thread - indeed, I was one of the more active posters in it. But it seems apparent that you yourself didn't read the full thread.

It's quite obvious that the accusations you've made here were aimed at me, as you specifically quoted one of the statements I made in the thread that you referred to. You then later clarified that statement, claiming that such people have the view "that muds have always been free, were meant to be free, and that anyone who profits from them is a greedy scumbag".

So if it wasn't aimed at me, why did you use a quote from me in the thread you cited to try and prove your point?

No KaVir, not every accusation I made was aimed at you. Many people did contribute to that thread, and consequentially, its not all about you.

Concerning tired socialist arguments: