Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

10-13-2002, 09:14 AM

Okay, perhaps the analogy I posted above wasn't clear enough.

I was discussing the actual demographics rl pollers use for such things as political debate. Not here, per se. So when I referred to "...listing people's..." in the above quote, I was hoping to metaphor that to "...listing MU*s...". With my examples of race, religious affiliation, education level, etc as being comparable to (but not directly corresponding to) cost, rp/pk preference, codebase, theme, etc.

I'm sorry if you couldn't see that because I didn't clarify it enough for you.

[Edit: Deleted something off-topic and non-pertinent 3 seconds after I posted it]

As for not seeing things in your post, I keep re-reading it and I think I understand every point you're trying to make... To simplify, in regards to the poll addressed...

You: You feel p2p MU*s should be up-front and honest about their cost on the rankings page. This is important because
<insert possible viable reason 1>
<insert possible viable reason 2>
<insert possible viable reason 3>

Me: Yes, I can see how those reasonings are important to you. And granted, many of the points you made are valid. They, however, are not as important to me. I think other aspects of the MU* are more important to drawing me to/away from it. Such as its rp/pk ratio.

You: But rp/pk ratio doesn't cost money! Thats the deciding factor. Hogwash!

Me: To YOU that is a deciding factor. If we are going to put defining icons on the front page, why not tailor them to the communities needs (ie, your wants [$$$], my wants [rp/pk], JFK's wants [codebase], Mary's wants [theme]).

You: Because they don't cost money!

Remember, there is always this theory: the rankings page is for giving a brief blurb description of your MU* to try and attract the interest of the players to research it more. $/RP-PK/Codebase/etc on the ranking page doesn't fit that, leave it to Info.

Oh, and if you want to discuss this via PM, by all means, take it there. Judging by how the voting is currently progressing I think many people share your view and I am somewhat addressing them as well.

To Dulan: about Achaea, I'm not going to debate this because as far as I have seen (and told by Syn), the very definition of 'pay-to-play' has not been set in steel and is currently subjective. Since the term has no set definition, it would be impossible to debate whether it applies to a specific MU* which dances on the gray area of it. I would think rather than debate Achaea's status of being p2p or not, it would be wiser for everyone to come up with a working definition (at least on this site) by which we could all agree to debate by. If this has been done before and I missed it, I apologize. I have checked on-line through a few search engines and asked around, but no one has been able to point me in the direction of "the absolutely, universally accepted" definition of p2p.
And yes, I had seen Achaea's TMC advertisement and thought it was offensive and in incredibly poor taste. While shady practices there may be, I'm focusing on one topic at a time. Sometimes a lot of little changes to the foundation of the way a person thinks or acts can have a greater impact on them than if you try to change the way they think about everything all at once.

10-13-2002, 09:14 AM	#49
TG_Nek Posts: n/a	Okay, perhaps the analogy I posted above wasn't clear enough. I was discussing the actual demographics rl pollers use for such things as political debate. Not here, per se. So when I referred to "...listing people's..." in the above quote, I was hoping to metaphor that to "...listing MUs...". With my examples of race, religious affiliation, education level, etc as being comparable to (but not directly corresponding to) cost, rp/pk preference, codebase, theme, etc. I'm sorry if you couldn't see that because I didn't clarify it enough for you. [Edit: Deleted something off-topic and non-pertinent 3 seconds after I posted it] As for not seeing things in your post, I keep re-reading it and I think I understand every point you're trying to make... To simplify, in regards to the poll addressed... You: You feel p2p MUs should be up-front and honest about their cost on the rankings page. This is important because <insert possible viable reason 1> <insert possible viable reason 2> <insert possible viable reason 3> Me: Yes, I can see how those reasonings are important to you. And granted, many of the points you made are valid. They, however, are not as important to me. I think other aspects of the MU* are more important to drawing me to/away from it. Such as its rp/pk ratio. You: But rp/pk ratio doesn't cost money! Thats the deciding factor. Hogwash! Me: To YOU that is a deciding factor. If we are going to put defining icons on the front page, why not tailor them to the communities needs (ie, your wants [$$$], my wants [rp/pk], JFK's wants [codebase], Mary's wants [theme]). You: Because they don't cost money! Remember, there is always this theory: the rankings page is for giving a brief blurb description of your MU* to try and attract the interest of the players to research it more. $/RP-PK/Codebase/etc on the ranking page doesn't fit that, leave it to Info. Oh, and if you want to discuss this via PM, by all means, take it there. Judging by how the voting is currently progressing I think many people share your view and I am somewhat addressing them as well. To Dulan: about Achaea, I'm not going to debate this because as far as I have seen (and told by Syn), the very definition of 'pay-to-play' has not been set in steel and is currently subjective. Since the term has no set definition, it would be impossible to debate whether it applies to a specific MU* which dances on the gray area of it. I would think rather than debate Achaea's status of being p2p or not, it would be wiser for everyone to come up with a working definition (at least on this site) by which we could all agree to debate by. If this has been done before and I missed it, I apologize. I have checked on-line through a few search engines and asked around, but no one has been able to point me in the direction of "the absolutely, universally accepted" definition of p2p. And yes, I had seen Achaea's TMC advertisement and thought it was offensive and in incredibly poor taste. While shady practices there may be, I'm focusing on one topic at a time. Sometimes a lot of little changes to the foundation of the way a person thinks or acts can have a greater impact on them than if you try to change the way they think about everything all at once.