Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

02-19-2005, 11:31 PM

My memory is certainly not foggy enough to want to repeat the mistake of being involved in muds that are run on that system again. I have no desire to be involved in "running" a mud in that sense, nor am I currently.

I don't have to resort to theory on that, I could list all the mud codebases (non Diku) that don't have snoop or wizinvis. For example none of the available mudlibs that I know for ColdC implement snoop or wizinvis. The point being it isn't at all necessary or needed for problem solving.

It's quite easy enough to indicate availability or unavailability, and retrieve away messages in the same way that players can. And yet what Diku player hasn't had strange experiences with disembodied voices? I contend it's used for quite a different purpose on most muds. Did you ever think of implementing playerviz so players could hide from imms and communicate anonymously as well?

IRT 1. Note boards, forums and tells are certainly more than sufficient to report problems. IMO, if a player is unable to communicate a problem through a note or an exchange, then muds probably aren't going to suit them anyway.
IRT 2-4. I would have thought building and testing in most Dikus was done on test ports or offline. That's how we always did it. If we didn't have enough testers, we'd invite players to participate as well. On other types of muds apparently one is able to build, code and debug online without snoop.

Addressing the privacy problem would involve removing the security holes not inventing excuses to justify them. Implementing key encryption inside a mud would be quite useful as well to secure privacy of communications.

There are actually more things I mean by it, but as far as communications are concerned the above is correct. Your scenario assumes that players remain unaware of what ignore does, whether it's even operative, cannot form character judgments themselves, and for some reason Player A is still actually quite interested in continuing to deal with Player B via third parties.

I don't really know what "out of hand" means to you. I expect players would decide that for themselves. It would mean players would no longer whine, bitch, moan and rely on you to solve their social problems. Why do you assume they wouldn't make creative use of social tools available to them? They clearly demonstrate that they are quite capable of making full use of the rest of their avatar's toolbox, your other game commands (especially the bugged ones ;-), and most of all they use these existing tools in concert with other players.

My pet peeve isn't just bugs, but punishing people because your design or code is broken. If you have to deal with "bugs" like the above on a daily basis then yes, that's certainly level 1 on my "you suck" table. The social stuff is because players don't have any the powerz to prevent it. It's a circular argument, they don't have the power so they need us. See how much they need us.

The phrase is certainly very popular among those who start muds, and advertise them. And you wrote an article on just the sort of players who would use that phrase in one sense. For a great many it translates into "they listen to me and implement the things I want". I don't put much stock in it from the viewpoint of "I want to mud in a safe monitored environment with no privacy" though I acknowledge some players do.

If you want to know whether you really can administrate a mud effectively, delete your immortal character and recreate as a regular player character under the same name. Set your title to Head Wizard, Big Cheese, Great Kahuna, or whatever just so players know you are the one running the mud and the one to report problems to.

02-19-2005, 11:31 PM	#43
Posts: n/a	My memory is certainly not foggy enough to want to repeat the mistake of being involved in muds that are run on that system again. I have no desire to be involved in "running" a mud in that sense, nor am I currently. I don't have to resort to theory on that, I could list all the mud codebases (non Diku) that don't have snoop or wizinvis. For example none of the available mudlibs that I know for ColdC implement snoop or wizinvis. The point being it isn't at all necessary or needed for problem solving. It's quite easy enough to indicate availability or unavailability, and retrieve away messages in the same way that players can. And yet what Diku player hasn't had strange experiences with disembodied voices? I contend it's used for quite a different purpose on most muds. Did you ever think of implementing playerviz so players could hide from imms and communicate anonymously as well? IRT 1. Note boards, forums and tells are certainly more than sufficient to report problems. IMO, if a player is unable to communicate a problem through a note or an exchange, then muds probably aren't going to suit them anyway. IRT 2-4. I would have thought building and testing in most Dikus was done on test ports or offline. That's how we always did it. If we didn't have enough testers, we'd invite players to participate as well. On other types of muds apparently one is able to build, code and debug online without snoop. Addressing the privacy problem would involve removing the security holes not inventing excuses to justify them. Implementing key encryption inside a mud would be quite useful as well to secure privacy of communications. There are actually more things I mean by it, but as far as communications are concerned the above is correct. Your scenario assumes that players remain unaware of what ignore does, whether it's even operative, cannot form character judgments themselves, and for some reason Player A is still actually quite interested in continuing to deal with Player B via third parties. I don't really know what "out of hand" means to you. I expect players would decide that for themselves. It would mean players would no longer whine, bitch, moan and rely on you to solve their social problems. Why do you assume they wouldn't make creative use of social tools available to them? They clearly demonstrate that they are quite capable of making full use of the rest of their avatar's toolbox, your other game commands (especially the bugged ones ;-), and most of all they use these existing tools in concert with other players. My pet peeve isn't just bugs, but punishing people because your design or code is broken. If you have to deal with "bugs" like the above on a daily basis then yes, that's certainly level 1 on my "you suck" table. The social stuff is because players don't have any the powerz to prevent it. It's a circular argument, they don't have the power so they need us. See how much they need us. The phrase is certainly very popular among those who start muds, and advertise them. And you wrote an article on just the sort of players who would use that phrase in one sense. For a great many it translates into "they listen to me and implement the things I want". I don't put much stock in it from the viewpoint of "I want to mud in a safe monitored environment with no privacy" though I acknowledge some players do. If you want to know whether you really can administrate a mud effectively, delete your immortal character and recreate as a regular player character under the same name. Set your title to Head Wizard, Big Cheese, Great Kahuna, or whatever just so players know you are the one running the mud and the one to report problems to.