[KaVir]

<Snip: Removed paragraph as requested - Xerihae>

Personally I'm strongly in favour of either the 4 or 5 option system. I feel the 5 option system would be more useful to players, but the extra option could be "gamed" (for example, some content which can be bought for $5 or earned through 50 years of play, so that while it's theoretically accessable without money, it'll never happen in practice). On the other hand the 4 option system is a little less useful for players, but is completely unambigious, and nobody has yet managed to provide an example of a mud which it doesn't very clearly catagorise.

I also think it's important that the 4 or 5 option system include a text box, so that the mud owner can clarify further details about their payment model.

The 2 option system is of very limited benefit. It's also a subset of the 4/5 option system, as its second option is identical to the last option of the 4/5 option system, while all the other choices of the 4/5 option system are clumped together in the first button of the 2 option system. Thus the 4/5 option system already includes any and every benefit of the 2 option system, but also extends those choices to include other factors - factors that several players have already expressed an interest in.

Originally I suggested having many more options, but I've come to realise that too many options can sometimes be almost as bad as too few. Thus it is my opinion that 4 or 5 is the best compromise, allowing players to check for the primary payment models without overloading them with too many search options.