Isn't that offset by a lower popularity due to payment restrictions? And I'm pretty sure I've seen advertisements from MUDs who aren't commercial, Carrion Fields is the first that springs to mind and it's on the list here.

Is it possible for this list to be stickied?

The evidence would suggest otherwise.

A few of the completely free muds will pay for banners out of their own pocket, but you won't see anything approaching the sort of advertising that the commercial muds can afford.

Is that really true though? Just looking at the top 5

Achaea (commercial)
Aardwolf (leaning toward non-commercial)
WoTMUD (non-commercial)
Carrion Fields (leaning toward non-commercial)
Discworld (non-commercial)

Looking at the list here it looks like there isn't actual evidence to support that claim. Unless I'm missing something?

Well the TMS mud list doesn't really have much to do with popularity, but take a look at the top 10 and you'll see that half are commercial muds. What percentage of the other 90 do you think are commercial?

And keep in mind that these represent the smaller commercial muds - the really big ones, like GemStone or DragonRealms, don't even bother getting their players to vote.

Well, the numer is really arbitrary, you could look at the top 20 and then compare. I'm seeing a pretty equal distribution, even in just the top 10 though, that certainly doesn't support the assertion that non-commercial MUDs can't compete because of lack of funds to go to advertizing.

The fact that they're completely free is a big enough bonus to popularity it would seem, from the results here. So this once again poses the question, why do they feel they can't compete, when they're doing so quite successfully already?

We currently have a banner because a player contacted Synozeer and bought the space for one on his own initiative. It's a very generous gesture, but I fail to see how it would make us "commercial".

Well, you do sell stuff. I didn't say you were pay for perks and even said you were leaning toward non-commercial. But you are selling things.

1) The advantage we get from being truly "free" is diluted by the advertising practices of some of the commercial games. That practice is permitted here, but we would welcome an alternative which made the distinction clear.

2) What harm would such a site do? You're writing a lot of posts questioning its existence, but as long as someone else takes care of the labor and money required to put up such a site, why do you care if one exists?

You're missing four major points:

1) There are far more non-commercial muds listed here than there are commercial ones, meaning that the commercial muds are generally much higher in the rankings.

2) The largest of the non-commercial muds are present on the list, while the larger commercial muds are not.

3) TMS is only one form of advertising, and a relatively minor one (which also ties in to point 2 - the larger commercial muds don't even consider it worth bothering with).

4) It doesn't cost anything to list your mud on TMS, which makes the entire example rather irrelevent.

My previous answer stands: The non-commercial muds don't have the same amount of money to throw at advertising. Non-commercial muds can't generally afford to maintain banners on mud and general gaming sites, to buy advertising space in printed magazines, and so on.

1) That's not really the case. Nobody keeps playing and voting for a game they don't like. Being completely free is not a one-shot advertising advantage, it's part of the game concept and as such has value well beyond the first three lines of text in the advertisement.

2) I don't really care about what sort of harm it would do, I'm just horribly puzzled by the mindset. You're here competing with other MUDs successfully, but for some reason you want to take your ball home and not have to compete with them? Am I misunderstanding this somehow?

You're welcome to start your own site with its own criteria and not include us. I don't demand that your home MUD (Aetolia/IRE) should put up material advertising Carrion Fields. I don't see us ceasing to sell CF coffee mugs and whatnot.

However, given that we meet Anitra's criteria, and nass is proposing to make a site based on her list, I don't see what the problem is.

But this whole thing is about TMS, isn't it? What does it matter if there are bigger commercial MUDs somewhere out there? They're not competing here. So what if there are far more non-commercial MUDs listed here than commercial ones? A lot of them simply aren't popular enough to compete for the top 20 - be it against commercial or other non-commercial MUDs.

How is it irrelevant? I wasn't speaking of TMS as an advertisement platform but rather as a measure of popularity for the sampling of MUDs we have here. Non-commercial MUDs can compete just as successfully as commercial ones, it would seem from the results here. This is where the competition occurs, after all.

Why does this matter in regard to TMS? If non-commercial MUDs are completing succesfully here, it's obvious that this advantage is offset by something else.

Completely agreed. Our current monthly advertising budget stands at $0, and we're one of the larger "actually free in practice" (*) games. We aggressively try to make ourselves visible on various sites that permit free advertising (like the forums here), but it's not as simple as writing a check.

It's a whole different world. I know it, you know, and it seems to me like everyone on this thread except the IRE affiliates knows it.

(*): Or whatever term we're forced to use to describe our operations model here..

I claimed there was a problem with CF selling things? Or with being on the list?

What I'm asking for is justification for this whole thing, these MUDs are already listed here, what is the justification for listing them on another side but leaving out the other MUDs they're competing against here?

I think so - I've not seen anyone proposing that they leave TMS. Instead, they seem to be suggesting joining forces to help promote each other, pooling their resources so as to draw extra attention to their games. Sounds like a good idea to me, and I'm surprised to hear objections.

If it's mutual promotion, I could understand it. But I don't understand the hint of indignation at having to share TMS with commercial MUDs, hence I felt the need to ask why they would seek promotion around a criteria such as pay-for-perks vs not-pay-for-perks. I'm not even objecting, I just don't understand the reasons behind it.

Stabs aside, it looks to me like you're complaining here that your model isn't working for you as well as you'd like it to. Do you feel you'd be more popular if you went commercial? Commercial MUDs gain the perk of being able to finance advertising and non-commercial MUDs gain the perk of being more attractive because of the obviously lower price to participate. Judging from the rankings, these things are evened out.

No, it's about free muds, and giving them exposure because they don't generally have the funds to pay for banners and advertisements.

Because the point is that non-commercial muds cannot afford to throw the same sort of money at advertising as the commercial muds can. The TMS listings are free and therefore obviously not the sort of advertising being discussed.

Unfortunately it doesn't provide an accurate measure of popularity.

It doesn't - the discussion is not about TMS, it's just taking place on the TMS forums.

Because the commercial muds already have an advantage when it comes to advertising. The proposal being discussed here is that those muds which lack that advantage should pool their resources to create their own advantage.

Two questions:

1) Why is free advertising considered to be irrelevant in comparison to paid advertising when they both accomplish the same goal - i.e. exposure? If someone comes to TMS they see a banner and they see a list of other MUDs advertising themselves a couple of inches lower. Is this a mammoth difference? And this really applies to all sorts of advertising mediums, magasines and gaming sites can and do review games without payment.

2) Your points seem to hinge on the assumption that advertising is a much stronger factor in acquiring players than lower price. How do you support this?