|
Yet as I already pointed out, going by the acroynm itself practically every mud would be classified as an RP mud, while no mud would be classified as a PK mud (at least, I've never heard of any mud which killed the players, unless you count the occasional suicide). The meanings might not be as specific as RPI, but we still give acroynms such as RP/PK/etc certain meanings which go beyond the literal wording.
But don't you think it would be worth telling that person that MUCK already has a meaning, that it already refers to a specific style of mud, and that if they call their "Multi-User Creative Killfest mud" a "MUCK" then many potential players are going to confuse it for a completely different type of game? Furthermore, if that mud listed itself as being a "MUCK", do you think it would be unreasonable for an auditor of the weblisting to flag the entry as inaccurate?
Those are specific codebases. My scratch-written PK mud is object-oriented - what sort of response do you think if I advertised in on a forum for MOOs?
Of course I'm perfectly entitled to call my mud a MOO (or indeed anything else) if I like, but that's not really the point. MOO already has a specific set of features, many of which have nothing to do with OO, and based on those criteria my mud doesn't qualify. Calling my mud a MOO would therefore just lead to confusion.
|