|
The problem is, there's really no realistic way to keep track of players unless they voluntarily allow you to. Obviously very few players are likely to agree to this simply so that they can retain a bad reputation between muds, which means they're only likely to do it if it benefits them in some way.
The only feasible solution I can think of would be to maintain some sort of "player database", and give players the option of providing their database account information when connecting to a mud. This would be primarily of benefit for roleplaying muds, where (for example) certain classes or races might only be available for those who have already proved themselves experienced and trustworthy - in this case it might work like a reference, allowing the player to start playing a less-standard character on the basis that they've already proved their roleplaying ability elsewhere.
This could be perhaps more useful for staff positions - if an applicant claims experience but has no (or a brand new) account in the database, and you don't know anything about them, it would be wise not to give a position of too much trust until they've proved themselves. On the other hand, if someone has glowing reviews from previous muds s/he has worked on (particularly if those muds are well known) they're going to find it much easier to get work.
The major downside that I can see is that many people would be afraid to provide accurate reviews if those reviews contained anything negative, because such reviews would be likely to get the reviewer rated poorly in return, and they probably wouldn't want to tarnish the "reputation" of their account. This could also give rise to potential blackmail (or bribery) if such a database gather sufficient popularity. As such it would probably require very careful monitoring.
Of course there's also the problem that I don't think it would be used much, except for negative reviews. Not many mud owners are likely to give their coder a glowing review if he quits the mud and leaves them stranded. There are very few situations where a staff member (or even a player for that matter) quits a mud when both they and the mud owner are happy for them to remain there. Leaving a mud almost always implies dissatisfaction on someone's behalf, and that is unlikely to result in positive reviews, unless those reviews are somehow intended to "buy off" the individual in question.
So in short, I voted "I'd like to, but it'd never be feasable".
|