Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Elvarlyn · 07-29-2010, 01:47 AM

Advancement and political hierarchies have been a problem in many of the MUDs I've played. A leader will receive a position and camp in it for months or even years. 85% of the time, the grounds to challenge a leader are inactivity. In a vicious catch-22, advancement through the ranks will often require that a person receive significant input from someone at the top... who is often lazy or inactive. Thus, the very people who could conceivably replace a leader are stuck in the lower-middle tiers because the person they are trying to replace for inactivity is too inactive to promote them.

This scenario becomes doubly painful in pay-for-perks MUDs where being the leader of an organization earns you a stipend. Leaders will rabidly hold onto leadership positions they don't particularly want because to surrender them would mean giving up a steady stream of income. When challenged on their inactivity or lazyness they will briefly resurface, spouting fiery rhetoric about their service to the organization and offering promises of future activity... only to then sink back into the same routines once the leadership challenge is dealt with.

07-29-2010, 01:47 AM	#9
Elvarlyn Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 50	Re: Troublesome Aspects Advancement and political hierarchies have been a problem in many of the MUDs I've played. A leader will receive a position and camp in it for months or even years. 85% of the time, the grounds to challenge a leader are inactivity. In a vicious catch-22, advancement through the ranks will often require that a person receive significant input from someone at the top... who is often lazy or inactive. Thus, the very people who could conceivably replace a leader are stuck in the lower-middle tiers because the person they are trying to replace for inactivity is too inactive to promote them. This scenario becomes doubly painful in pay-for-perks MUDs where being the leader of an organization earns you a stipend. Leaders will rabidly hold onto leadership positions they don't particularly want because to surrender them would mean giving up a steady stream of income. When challenged on their inactivity or lazyness they will briefly resurface, spouting fiery rhetoric about their service to the organization and offering promises of future activity... only to then sink back into the same routines once the leadership challenge is dealt with.