[prof1515]

"RPI defenders" haven't had their back in a corner. They have gotten frustrated at the constant straw man arguments and inaccurate statements and overall ignorance of the history of the term that is continually brought up by some members of the forum, even after such arguments, inaccuracies, and ignorance are proven erroneous.

To say nothing of biased, attacks like that.

Or like this baseless accusation.

Or blanket statements like that.

You have yet to prove anything and have succeeded only in derailing this discussion. If you wish to provide a counter to the points discussed, disprove the following:

1. The term RPI was first applied to a small group of MUDs and used both by and in reference to those MUDs by members of the MUD community besides those associated with said games.
2. Those MUDs share the same features agreed upon earlier in this discussion.
3. That the use of this term to describe three different games utilizing two independently-derived sets of near-identical code features which were later adhered to by more games including a third independently-derived codebase.
4. That the term RPI has since been appropriated for use by MUDs not bearing similarity to any of the above.

And again statements like this are deceitful. As I already explained to you and to to your spouse no slight was ever intended toward her or your children. The remark was solely directed at you and persisting to claim otherwise is an example of demonizing those you disagree with rather than countering their arguments with facts.

Despite whatever reason you have for doing so, these repeated attacks have only served to provoke the sort of response you then point to as a substitute for an actual counter argument to their points. Whether your behavior is a result of fear that some community members' assumption that the term RPI denotes greater quality or simply jealousy on your part in regard to that assumption, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, I can not say. But your repeated denial of the purpose of this discussion has only been backed by accusation and aggravation of those individuals, myself included, who are attempting to distill a reasonable and accurate definition of the term RPI. I repeat that any comment I just made is directed solely at you and not your family because I have yet to hear any legitimate argument from you to counter those four points of discussion which have been arrived at before the derailing of this thread.

These are baseless accusations based on assumption of purpose to which I refer. You can not know the goal of anyone but yourself so unless you're speaking of yourself, any talk of other people's goals is nothing but speculation. It may be well-founded speculation or not, but to claim "it definitely is" or is not anything is not true. Spoken as is, it constitutes nothing more than a personal attack on motives you can not possibly know.

This has been done and refinement of that set of features would be continuing now if it were not for the derailment of the discussion.

We're attempting to clear up the misconceptions about just such a term: RPI. But the term RPI is a term with a historical precedent and is far from vague or generic when the context of its use is examined. It's not about my "RP rule set" or anyone's preferences. It's about definable set of characteristics that the term was historically used to denote. Even outside of the historical context in which it was used, RPI is no more or less accurate than practically any other term used to describe other kinds of MUDs (or even the term MUD itself).

The first step in this discussion was attempting to discern the features that constituted a RPI MUD. There had been considerable input into this process before the derailment. My hope is that from this point forward the discussion will return to that original purpose and the analysis will be completed. As for other steps in clearing up the misperceptions about the term RPI, those are being taken as well but shall require discussion to ensure that the process is factual.

Here's to keeping the discussion civil and factual from here on out. Is that something we can all agree to?

Take care,

Jason