|
Initially according to the people who created the first RPIs presumably, in order to clarify their style of mud, although it's now fairly commonly accepted (except by those running RP muds which don't satisfy the RPI criteria).
I fail to see any claim of "superiority", any more than muds which claim to be RP or PK. It is simply another classification of mud.
In your previous post you yourself specifically suggested features you felt should be mandatory for an RPI. Yet when I point out that someone else has already defined those features (and over 12 years ago as well, I might add), you claim that it's "that kind of arrogance" that you "cannot support"?
The definitions arise through use. You're right though - there's no official body who can refute Bubba from listing his pure PK stock mud as a non-PK RPI mud. In fact there are many mud owners who go to the effort of misleading the public in order to try and attract new players. However most people will not take such muds seriously, and listings are likely to be audited, because sites such as this and TMC generally prefer to give the players accurate information based on their expectations. If I listed my mud as a MOO, it would no doubt be changed - not because my mud isn't a "Mud Object-Oriented", but because it doesn't fall into the definition of what a MOO is.
|