|
Then why not propose an alternative solution to Adam? He seems to be trying to do his best to create a fair compromise, but you need to make your suggestions known.
No, that seems fair enough.
If it's just a two-line reminder then I don't really see how your mud would be "punished" by the proposed clarifications.
The problem is that as they stand, the rules are highly abusable. It wouldn't take much effort for a mud to gather votes from the vast majority of its players through trickery and coercion.
It's not about what goes on in someone else's mud - it's about where the votes come from. If mud X gives players double exp for voting and half exp if they don't, while mud Y makes no changes, then a far higher percentage of mud X's players are going to vote. That result is a very skewed set of listings.
That is obviously false - the rule clarification puts all muds on equal footing. If anything, the big muds come out better off, as they can't be pushed down the list by smaller muds that are willing to irritate their players in order to push up their ranking.
Your argument is much akin to that of some mudders who argue that they should be able to do whatever they wish on the mud - that if the system allows it, they should be able to get away with it. Unfortunately such an approach does not lend itself well to a successful mud, nor would it lend itself here to a successful mud ranking system.
|