[Kereth]

I'd have to disagree with basing it on no-longer-voting MUDs. There are loads of MUDs whose players just got disillusioned with voting sites and stopped voting here, but the MUD may still be quite active. Having no votes is certainly justification for a "This game has 0 votes." tag, which would let users draw their own conclusions, but it might be rushing things to identify them as "possibly inactive" on that alone.

Of course, we'll also need a working definition for inactivity. Some MUDs have virtually no players except for an occasional newbie who stops by from something like this, plays alone, and then leaves after a day or two (I've seen MUDs like this and even been the newbie. It's kinda' an interesting experience, navigating a ghost MUD), but they're still up and running and can be connected to, even though their administrators have long-since abandoned working on them or even logging in. Personally, I'd still find these MUDs worth listing. Others may disagree.

Inability to connect is all well and good too, but some MUDs do experience technical difficulties on occasion, which will bring them down for as much as several months, which while this is certainly bad for business at the MUD, it would be a shame to have their listings cut for. At least one MUD I've played at had this problem, going down for most of a Summer, but they came back and have been running smoothly and healthily ever since.

Simply having the site automatically check MUDs periodically might be too much a strain on site resources with enough MUDs to check. It might be more convenient to use player reporting to flag a MUD as "possibly dead," then have a timer for the site to start checking up on them, and if after a set period of time, which is considered too long for a MUD to reasonably come back from, purge it. This would take longer to clear out the dead sites, however.

Just my two cents,
-Kereth