Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Spoke · 03-16-2006, 11:18 AM

In your webpage, it is specifically said that

Now, this is clearly different from MUDs that are trully 100% free to play and do not contain any solicitation for money from the staff, is not it?

Further down your site's page we find

,

which could be read as, eventhough every bit helps, you should donate larger amounts of money to us. (I guess this is a valid way to read, as much as free-to-play can be read as free-to-obtain-everything-that-everybody-else-gets-even-if-they-bought-things -with-rl-money).

At the end, comercial and non-comercial ventures require money to be run. There are different models for both and it has been said before that the problem is not with labeling two different models differently, but with doing so in an inaccurate way that would harm either of the two ends. The problem is that if you want to be accurate, you cannot do it with simply the addition of a couple check-boxes, furthermore, only the MUDs in the first page (if even those) will be policed for accurateness of their description, which would mean much more annoyance to the list owner. I believe Matt has said a couple of times that he would be willing to add a full description of their economical model, but he was behemently against new labels that would send the wrong message to the potential players of his MUDs.

On top of this, if it is true that the great majority of the comunity does not really care about MUDs where you can pay to advance or get perks, then it would make much more sense that this same comunity had discussions on Role-playing, H&S design, combat styles, etc. The reality is that except for a couple of people (not more than a handful), like Brody and now and then KaViR, nothing is discussed about any of these, much more important, subjects. So, what we have here is just a concern for having someone else using my words, in a way that is accepted by most people (not the posters of these threads though) in everyday life (Go to a Publix supermarket if you live in the US and check how many 'Buy-One-get-One-free' you find).

Lastly, I believe someone had mentioned that Matt had only supporters among his staff or players. I am none of those, and I believe I even have had priv-messages exchanged before with the person making this claim, explaining this was so. This is not only a poor way to try to undermine arguments but a clear way to show that even with knowledge of a fact people choose to hide it if it would serve their purposes to attack someone else.

Have a good day

* bold-italic added by me.
** bold-italic text added by me.

03-16-2006, 11:18 AM	#11
Spoke Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 101	In your webpage, it is specifically said that Now, this is clearly different from MUDs that are trully 100% free to play and do not contain any solicitation for money from the staff, is not it? Further down your site's page we find , which could be read as, eventhough every bit helps, you should donate larger amounts of money to us. (I guess this is a valid way to read, as much as free-to-play can be read as free-to-obtain-everything-that-everybody-else-gets-even-if-they-bought-things -with-rl-money). At the end, comercial and non-comercial ventures require money to be run. There are different models for both and it has been said before that the problem is not with labeling two different models differently, but with doing so in an inaccurate way that would harm either of the two ends. The problem is that if you want to be accurate, you cannot do it with simply the addition of a couple check-boxes, furthermore, only the MUDs in the first page (if even those) will be policed for accurateness of their description, which would mean much more annoyance to the list owner. I believe Matt has said a couple of times that he would be willing to add a full description of their economical model, but he was behemently against new labels that would send the wrong message to the potential players of his MUDs. On top of this, if it is true that the great majority of the comunity does not really care about MUDs where you can pay to advance or get perks, then it would make much more sense that this same comunity had discussions on Role-playing, H&S design, combat styles, etc. The reality is that except for a couple of people (not more than a handful), like Brody and now and then KaViR, nothing is discussed about any of these, much more important, subjects. So, what we have here is just a concern for having someone else using my words, in a way that is accepted by most people (not the posters of these threads though) in everyday life (Go to a Publix supermarket if you live in the US and check how many 'Buy-One-get-One-free' you find). Lastly, I believe someone had mentioned that Matt had only supporters among his staff or players. I am none of those, and I believe I even have had priv-messages exchanged before with the person making this claim, explaining this was so. This is not only a poor way to try to undermine arguments but a clear way to show that even with knowledge of a fact people choose to hide it if it would serve their purposes to attack someone else. Have a good day * bold-italic added by me. ** bold-italic text added by me.