Re: In defense of all MUDs. Our genre's noteworthiness is being questioned.
You have lots of extremely valid points, CP, and I do agree with many of them. Most importantly, I think things have gotten a LOT better since the Threshold incident, and there's been a big movement away from such things. Unfortunately, Arctic Mud has a pretty important place in MUDding history, but finding sources has proven to be extremely difficult. Granted, I'm looking for several sources that I've never actually physically laid eyes on rather than remembering things that I've read in the past. It's much harder to find things when I'm trying to recall things in distant memory for a game I've never played, but that's part of the problem. I don't really feel like I have a lot of time to find the sources before an entry goes kaput. Many paper sources take weeks to be mailed to someone, and sometimes, they even come with a cost depending on where you find the source.
Yes, it's true that I came in during the AfD, but I honestly had no idea that Artic Mud needed sources until it was mentioned here. If the admins of Arctic Mud want to contact me, I'd be happy to write and publish an article about them, their history and their game. There's plenty of independent writers who would be glad to be in touch with any of the admins of established or historical muds.
As a side note, I was totally boggled to find (not entirely work safe) on Wikipedia.
|