[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Harshlands is 2 years older than Threshold, while Armageddon is 5 years older, so I don't think it can be simply dismissed as "the latest trendy phrase".

What does the age of Harshlands or Armaggedon have to do with the fact that RPI is indeed the "latest trendy phrase." You aren't going to try to tell me that RPI is a 10-13 year old term now are you? If so, please provide citations.

The statement of mine you quoted was one where I explained why I decided to just use the generic and non-controversial term "RPG" and eschew latching on to the latest trendy term every few months.

RPI is indeed the latest trendy phrase- like it or not. To argue otherwise is to descend into silliness and absurdity.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) So does "Mud Object-Oriented", yet I don't see people complaining about MOOs.

Why would they? Being Object-Oriented isn't something players care about. They do, however, care about game play, and intensive role play is a highly desirable type of game play. That is why any acronym developed around the concept of "role playing" will be controversial if a little group of people act like they own it.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Nor, in fact, does RP (Role-Playing) - a term which I've seen you defend on more than one occasion when HnS muds have claimed to be RP muds.

You have a really bad habit, KaVir, where instead of staying on topic you try to drag in discussions that may have taken place YEARS in the past (if they ever took place at all). Furthermore, you cite them completely out of context and twist them to take on a new meaning that suits your needs in the present.

You have been roundly and widely criticized for this habit and have been politely asked to stop by numerous people. Please stop doing it. Please make an effort to argue the topic at hand- not some discussion that took place in the distant past.

My opinion on this matter is clear: any game developer can freely call their game whatever they wish. They just better be able to back it up with a logical justification or they are going to subject themselves not only to public ridicule but also to angry players who will be mad that they were misled.

Never forget what the purpose of any such label is: it is to help the PLAYER find a game they will enjoy. Players care about the end result. You can be sure that players won't be having the same kind of hissy fit about the term RPI that a tiny clique of mud admins will have. If a game truly does have intensive role play then the majority of players aren't going to care if the game (*gasp!*) has OOC channels or non permanent death. They probably won't even care if they can instantly create a character without approval (despite this being something almost all serious RP muds require) - assuming the game itself DOES manage to have intensive role playing.

That is ultimately what matters. Will the player feel like they were misled by the use of the acronym? That is a determination the owner of each game has to make for his or her own game and for his or her own credibility. It is not a decision that can be made by the admins of a handful of muds with a grand idea of thumbing their noses at those they deem inferior.

I don't think any little clique of people can lay exclusive claim to an acronym like RPI. Furthermore, I think some of the "requirements" are so arbitrary and unrelated to role playing that they are no better than saying a game can only be an RPI if the game is run using Knoppix.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?

Wow KaVir. You just slaughtered that Straw Man. I have certainly never claimed every mud is an RP mud so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Your logic train has derailed... big time.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,05:58) Delayed response as I was away over Easter.

Bad timing for that poor Straw Man. He missed his shot at a resurrection.

I guess he was on an RPI with permadeath.

[KaVir]

You keep ignoring my points, Aristotle, but you won't distract me with insults. Let us go over this one more time. I have bolded the points which I believe you are claiming. The other points follow on logically. Please tell me at which point you disagree:

1) You believe that "RPI" should be used to represent its literal meaning, rather than being a label to refer to a specific style of mud. In other words, you feel that the label "RPI" should be usable by any mud that is "role-playing intensive".

2) RP stands for "role-playing". And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".

3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character. That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player. Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.

4) You feel that the term RPI shouldn't have to adhere to strict requirements - that any mud which involves intensive roleplaying should be able to use call themselves an RPI.

5) The literal meaning of "intensive" is subjective. Therefore if we're using literal meanings, any RP mud could claim to be an RPI on the basis that they feel the role-playing in their mud is "intensive".

6) As specified by point 3, going by literal meanings all muds are RP muds. And as specified by point 5, going by literal meanings any RP muds can quite legitimately claim to be an RPI mud. Therefore, going by literal meanings, all muds can be classified as RPI muds.

Which point do you disagree with, and why?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,09:35) You keep ignoring my points, Aristotle, but you won't distract me with insults.

I did not ignore any of your points and I didn't insult you. You *DO* have a very bad habit of going way off topic, dredging up conversations from years past, and twisting them to your purposes. This is a well known behavior of yours. You did it to me in this thread. If you consider it an insult when someone asks you to stop doing it, then I would recommend that you not do it in the first place.

You also totally conjured up a straw man when you said "And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?"

I never said anything remotely like the statements you were arguing against. I never said every mud is an RP mud, nor did I say anything even approaching that. Thus, yours was a classic straw man argument.

I simply refuse to indulge your flights of fancy.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 13 2004,09:35) Which point do you disagree with, and why?

Why do you insist on asking me to repeat myself over and over again? I already explained my view on the matter in great detail. If you actually want to know my opinion, re-read my posts (particularly my last one before this).

If you want me to refine one of my points, then try talking about my points rather than completely different ones that you invent and then attribute to me.

Nothing in your last post actually addressed anything I wrote. All you did was restate your "proof" that relies completely on steps that do not follow from each other. Points #2 and #3 are so ridiculous that they are laughable.

According to your points #2 and #3, Doom would be an RPG. If that is really what you want to argue, then have fun by yourself.

It sounds like all you want to do here is throw out your totally unconnected opinions and expect people to do nothing but discuss YOUR opinions. You aren't reading what I write and worse than that, you are attributing your own phantom counter-points to me. If you don't like the points I am making, you simply invent more convenient ones and act like I made them.

I honestly do not see what is productive about this discussion at this point.

It is ironic that the only reason I read this thread in the first place was when I saw you had posted here. Now it is because of your posts that I'm done. Your posts used to be very interesting and worthwhile. Both here and on usenet, I would read a thread simply because it showed "KaVir" as one of the posters. You used to stay on topic and respond to points people actually made rather than just invent new, more convenient ones that you erroneously attribute to them.

Those days are slowly becoming a distant memory. Of late, all I read from you is bitterness, rancor, and hostility. That's a shame.

Have fun with your straw men.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by You also totally conjured up a straw man when you said "And if every mud is an RP mud, and the "Intensive" part is agreed to be subjective, does that mean you believe that every mud should be classified as an RPI mud?"

No, I didn't, I asked a question - the same one I asked again in my most recent post.  I had already made the premise that every mud could be considered an RP mud, and that "intensive" is subjective, and wanted to know if either (1) you disagreed with those premises (and if so why), or (2) if you agreed with those premises, whether that meant you also believed that all RPIs could be classified as an RPI.

Originally Posted by I never said anything remotely like the statements you were arguing against. I never said every mud is an RP mud, nor did I say anything even approaching that. Thus, yours was a classic straw man argument.

It would have been a straw man if I had claimed you had made those statements and argued against you based on that interpretation.  But I didn't.  What you claimed was that "RPI" should be used as its literal meaning rather a specific style of mud.  What I'm trying to show you is what happens when you apply that logic to other abbreviations - because applying the logic to some and not others would be hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Points #2 and #3 are so ridiculous that they are laughable.

Point 2: RP stands for "role-playing".  And the literal meaning of "role-playing" is simply "to play a role".

Now there are two points here.  Is it that you believe the statement "RP stands for role-playing" is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable", or are you referring to the literal meaning?

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin....playing

Main Entry: role-play
Pronunciation: 'rOl-"plA, -'plA
Function: verb
transitive senses : ACT OUT <students were asked to role-play the thoughts and feelings of each character -- R. G. Lambert>
intransitive senses : to play a role

point 3) When playing a mud, a player never plays themselves - they play a character.  That character may have certain similarites with the player, but invariably the character lives within a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player.  Ergo, going by literal definitions, every mud is an RP mud.

What is "so ridiculous that [it is] laughable"?  The suggestion that a player plays a character?  Or the suggestion that they live in a different world to (and possesses different powers from) the player?  Because both of those statements are true in every mud I've ever played.  The conclusion of the above statement is a logical step based on the previous statements and point 2.

Originally Posted by According to your points #2 and #3, Doom would be an RPG.

Precisely, and that is the very point I am trying to demonstrate.  You argue that RPI should be used to represent its literal meaning - a role-playing intensive mud.  Yet you find it laughable when I suggest applying the same logic to other acroynms, such as RP.  Why?

In an earlier post you claimed "Unless something is managed by a standards body like ANSI or IEEE I do not think anyone can lay claim to what exactly defines RPI or any other game related acronym. Yes, people can share their opinions but nobody has the authority to outright declare what the precise and exact criterion are".

Is "RPG" not a game-related acronym?

You are arguing inconsistently.  Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't.  Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games.  A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other.  A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented.  And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features.

You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for.  You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players.  It doesn't mean that anyone thinks any less of your mud, any more than they would think less of mine for not being a MOO ("But my mud is Object-Oriented" I cry!).

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34) You obviously believe your mud to be a good-quality RP mud, and seem offended that someone could invent a classification of RP mud which your own mud doesn't qualify for.

KaVir, is this really what you've been reduced to? You were once one of the most interesting and well reasoned posters on any mud community or usenet forum, and now you resort to cheap insults and personal attacks. That is a real shame.

I have said repeatedly that long ago I decided to just use "RPG" because that acronym carried no baggage, no trendy elitist meanings, nor anything else that could be controversial.

Aside from all the other points I have made, I think "RPI" just sounds silly and I'd never want to attach it to any game I made. Please stop acting like my opinion on this matter has anything to do with wanting to use this acronym myself.

And when the next trendy acronym rolls around a few months from now, I won't be interested in using that one either. If that acronym is created by an elitist group of people who want to claim they own it, I'll disagree with that one too.

This issue is not about me or my game, it is about a small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others. They have invented an extremely arbitrary set of concepts that are no more about role playing than choice of chip set or operating system.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34) You are arguing inconsistently. Either acronyms should follow their literal meaning, or they shouldn't. Most people (including me) use the meaning that that acronym has come to take on - an RP mud or RPG has a certain style of IC player interaction similar to pen&paper roleplaying games. A PK mud allows player characters to fight each other. A MOO is a specific mud codebase which happens to be object-oriented. And an RPI is a type of RP mud which includes a specific range of features.

I am not arguing inconsistently. You are just not reading what I am posting. I am not arguing about what an acronym should mean. I consider arguments over the precise meaning of such acronyms to be pointless and unnecessarily divisive. I am arguing about WHO decides what an acronym means. I am saying that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.

Consider it a corollary of Dundee's Law: "Fighting the battle for nomenclature with your players is a futile act. Whatever they want to call things is what they will be called."

The difference between RPI and other acronyms is that RPG, RP, PK, etc. are not acronyms where a small group of people claim they are the sole arbiters of what makes something an RPG, an RP game, or a PK game.

The two things I object to most are:

1) A small group of people who act like they have the right and the power to CONTROL an acronym. They don't.

2) The attributes they have chosen are so arbitrary and irrelevant to actual role playing that it is the height of absurdity to claim such attributes are vital to any type of role playing. If someone said you have to run Red Hat Linux to be a PK mud, I'd be critical of such a comment as well.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 14 2004,03:34) You just need to rub the bruises from your ego and realise that an RPI is no better or worse than any other mud - it is simply a classification, and one which is useful to players.

Aha... more personal attacks. Oh, how far you have fallen. I read your posts now and they remind me of myself in my angry, flame war seeking, law school days. I am sure I am not alone in wishing we could hear more of the "old KaVir" and less of the new one who traffics in vitriol and venom.

I am a professional game developer and I am running a business. I would never be interested in using a vague, arbitrary term like RPI that is NOT widely known and would do nothing but confuse 90% of the people I would hope to recruit to my game. We recruit most of our new customers from OUTSIDE the mudding community because we want to expand the hobby.

Furthermore, I am not threatened by a couple of hobbyists trying to lord something over other hobbyists. Such cannibalism and in-fighting disturbs and saddens me but does not threaten me.

I do, however, think such behavior is bad for the mudding community which happens to be something I care about.

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ April 14 2004,19:22) This issue is not about me or my game, it is about a small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others. They have invented an extremely arbitrary set of concepts that are no more about role playing than choice of chip set and operating system.

Y'know, I was going to bite my tongue and stay out of this, but this is really just too much.

I seriously hope you aren't referring to the admins of MUDs using the acronym in question as a "small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others." If you aren't, then please disregard the rest of this post, as it won't apply.

You know what the really funny thing is? I don't see Sanvean, Revus, Alaire - or, come to think of it, any other admin from one of these games - posting here to argue over whether or not people should or should not be allowed to call their own game whatever the heck they like.

Really, the only person I see arguing is you, and to be frank, I don't understand at all why you're getting so worked up over this.

RPI, like any other acronym, is in place for the convenience of the community. Over the years it has taken on certain specific connotations - no better or worse than an Intel chipset versus an AMD chipset - and is merely used within that specific context to draw the attention of individuals who enjoy the elements said connotations entail as far as MUDing environments go.

Notice the complete lack of arrogance and elitism.

So do me a favor and quit slinging mud on the names and the hard work of numerous people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it other than try to create free, immersive environments for folks to enjoy in their spare time. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point the only particularly selfish and arrogant individual I see in this thread is the one who made these disparaging remarks.

Thanks.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Traithe @ April 14 2004,19:47) I seriously hope you aren't referring to the admins of MUDs using the acronym in question as a "small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others." If you aren't, then please disregard the rest of this post, as it won't apply.

Good news: I'm not.

Any comments I have made apply only to people who feel like they PERSONALLY control the meaning and use of any acronym: whether it is RPI, RP, PK, or some other acronym. There have been people in this thread who have actually argued that the term RPI has strict definitions that are decreed by specific individuals. That is the point I am arguing against.

I am not criticising people who use the acronym simply because they feel it accurately describes their game and helps players locate a game with traits they enjoy.

The most important point I have tried to make is that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.

As I said in a prior post, it is very, very similar to Dundee's Law: "Fighting the battle for nomenclature with your players is a futile act. Whatever they want to call things is what they will be called."

Originally Posted by So do me a favor and quit slinging mud on the names and the hard work of numerous people who have done absolutely nothing to deserve it other than try to create free, immersive environments for folks to enjoy in their spare time. Actions speak louder than words, and at this point the only particularly selfish and arrogant individual I see in this thread is the one who made these disparaging remarks.

PHEW! I'm glad your post doesn't apply to me or else I'd be feeling pretty bad right now.

[Traithe]

Heh.

This is the second time in the past few months I thought I had to defend myself from someone who wasn't even attacking me.

I blame it on law school. Too much ambiguity for any sane person to handle.

I'll hang my head in shame and resume lurking now...

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by This is the second time in the past few months I thought I had to defend myself from someone who wasn't even attacking me.

Well I am just glad we cleared it up promptly.

Originally Posted by I blame it on law school. Too much ambiguity for any sane person to handle.

No doubt. When I was in law school I was constantly looking for an argument. Those evil professors poison your mind.

Graduating from law school, getting married, and having a kid were moderating influences that made arguments and flame wars far less enjoyable. Perhaps it is mainly the wife. Even if you win an argument with your wife, you lose, so the joy of arguing wanes quickly. (I hope she doesn't read this)

Originally Posted by I'll hang my head in shame and resume lurking now...

No need to hang your head in shame. Part of the blame was mine for not being clear about exactly the types of people I was referring to.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I am not arguing inconsistently. You are just not reading what I am posting. I am not arguing about what an acronym should mean.

You are though - as you pointed out already, going by my previous points (which use the same logic as you've used for your view of what RPI should mean) Doom would be an RPG - yet you claim that those points "are so ridiculous that they are laughable".

Originally Posted by I consider arguments over the precise meaning of such acronyms to be pointless and unnecessarily divisive. I am arguing about WHO decides what an acronym means. I am saying that the meanings of acronyms like RPG, RP, PK, and even RPI get decided through use and not by declaration.

Precisely what I've been saying.  Labels such as RPG, RP, PK, RPI, etc are not defined by the literal meaning of the acronym - instead, they take on their own meaning based on the way they are used. And RPI has taken on its own such meaning, over many years, just like RPG, RP, etc.

Originally Posted by Aside from all the other points I have made, I think "RPI" just sounds silly and I'd never want to attach it to any game I made. Please stop acting like my opinion on this matter has anything to do with wanting to use this acronym myself. And when the next trendy acronym rolls around a few months from now, I won't be interested in using that one either.

Except that this isn't "the next trendy acroynm", it's an acroynm that has been established over many years.  Maybe you remember that debate back in 1997?

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ April 15 2004,03:25) Maybe you remember that debate back in 1997?

Good lord KaVir. Are you ever going to realize that this is why you have become a laughing stock? "Remember this debate from 1997?" How about the debate RIGHT NOW. Do you have a problem staying in the present?

Lay off the google groups and stay on topic.

RPI *is* a trendy acronym. The fact that is has come "back" in style doesn't make it any less trendy. It is no different than suit coats with three buttons, bell bottoms, seersucker suits, horn-rimmed glasses, or any other retro-style that becomes trendy.

Please stop dredging up ancient discussions in lieu of actually staying on topic. Please stop misquoting people, quoting them out of context, and using their words in arguments they are not involved in for your own purposes.

In other words, have some integrity.

I don't know what happened to you over the years, KaVir, but it is truly a sad sight to behold.

I am completely done with this topic and unfortuantely done with you. I'll have to join all the other people who used to love reading your opinions but can no longer tolerate your insanities.

I'm not thrilled about it, however. This is up there with Barry Bonds using roids or Pete Rose gambling. It is always depressing to see someone you once admired let themselves fall into such a disappointing state.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by "Remember this debate from 1997?" How about the debate RIGHT NOW. Do you have a problem staying in the present?  Lay off the google groups and stay on topic.

You claimed that "RPI is indeed the latest trendy phrase- like it or not. To argue otherwise is to descend into silliness and absurdity." - and specifically asked me to provide a citation to prove how long it had been around.  Then when I provide the citation you asked for, you insult me for not "staying in the present"?

The citation I provided might not go back 10+ years, but it still proves that (1) the term "RPI" was already well established 7 years ago, and (2) someone explained the term to you 7 years ago.  So where exactly do you get this "latest trendy phrase" thing from?

Originally Posted by I don't know what happened to you over the years, KaVir

Nothing happened to me - I have alrways responded this way to people who post inaccurate or inconsistant statements.  I've generally ignore your posts in the past because (1) I usually agree with your views, and (2) you're extremely tiring to argue with, as you take every slightest disagreement so personally.  This time however you specifically joined this thread by disagreeing with my points on an issue which (1) I knew I was right about, and (2) I had already explained earlier in the thread.

You didn't like it 7 years ago, and you obviously don't like it now, but the fact still remains that RPI has an established meaning for a specific type of mud.  And no amount of personal insults are going to change that fact.

Originally Posted by (Threshold @ April 14 2004,19:22) This issue is not about me or my game, it is about a small clique of selfish people trying to act superior to others. They have invented an extremely arbitrary set of concepts that are no more about role playing than choice of chip set or operating system. ---- The two things I object to most are: 1) A small group of people who act like they have the right and the power to CONTROL an acronym. They don't. 2) The attributes they have chosen are so arbitrary and irrelevant to actual role playing that it is the height of absurdity to claim such attributes are vital to any type of role playing. If someone said you have to run Red Hat Linux to be a PK mud, I'd be critical of such a comment as well.

I have to agree with this.  I myself have never seen any formal definition of RPI.  I've also used the the terms RPE RPI RPS RPF RPGM in many posts over the years after defining them up front and then using them as shorthand.  I was nevertheless suprised by a response that in essence declared they shouldn't be used that way and meant something other than what I said they meant.  

It does remind me very much of the MU* term and it's attempted use.  Or an even better example...

Originally Posted by       A MUD is not goal-oriented; it has no beginning or end,        no 'score', and no notion of 'winning' or 'success'.        In short, even though user of MUDs are commonly called        players, a MUD isn't a really a game at all.        A MUD is extensible from within; a user can add new objects        to the database ...  - Pavel Curtis 1993.

Were the people who ran muds in the TinyMud family attempting to distinguish and separate themselves from the Diku and LPMuds by redefining MUD and then later inventing MU*?  
You bet they were.  

I'm not going to get into the elitist snob argument.  The point being that arguing over the use of an acronym, and one that is not at all well defined nor recognized by the general mud community, is rather petty and ignores any points about role-play a poster is making.  

Anyway I've recently moved on to using the terms dwarves, hobbits and elves when describing types of role-players or non-role-players.  

Just for the record... IIRC this is my various freewheeling uses of the acronyms over the breadth of my posts.

RPI - role-play immersive/intensive same as RPE or RPW (hobbits)
RPE - role-play versus the environment (hobbits)
RPW - role-play versus the world (hobbits)
RPF - role-play freestyle (elves)
RPS - role-play storytelling (elves)
RPGM - role-play game mastered (elves-hobbits)
The rest - non-role-players, light avatarism, Hack-n-slashers, roll-players (dwarves, and some hobbits)

I'll probably continue my loose use...  
And I've always been upfront concerning my distaste of Hobbits...  That's where opinion comes in.  Consider the source.

It does remind me a bit of the recent post over on MudMagic exhorting us to come to a "mud community consensus" and agree to redefine the term MUD to mean multi-user domain or dimension, and NOT dungeon.   Like nobody has ever dictated that we use dungeon or chat kingdom or domain or dimension or shared hallucination in the first place.  

So until RPI is trademarked, I look on it the same way I look on Pavel Curtis's quote about what a mud is.  Yeah errm whatver.  (Note: I don't believe that is his position now BTW, but I may be wrong.)

Yeah... Threshold is an RPI/RPE/RPW type of mud.  Quite similar to Armeggedon and Harshlands.  That's all a player needs to know.    ;-P