|
This is still zero sum. A player that plays two MUDs is not worth as much as two players who each play one MUD. A player, or, mor specifically, a player's time is a finite resource that does not increase in value when spread across multiple recipients. If the hypothetical player allocates half of his resources to another MUD, the first MUD loses that amount of resources, and the net change is zero.
As for losing wealth vs. not gaining, I agree that they are significantly different. I was merely pointing out that unless Mihaly's MUD was running a net loss, it was having a negative impact on the rest of the list. The only way it could have a positive impact while running a net gain would be if his MUD listing generated more new wealth than it consumed. A new MUD listing, however, has no effect on the amount of new wealth generated by TMS, therefore his MUD listing was most definitely negatively impacting the rest of the list.
Just to preemptively clear up any possible confusion, please note that I'm not saying that a negative impact on the rest of the list is in any way out of line. It is, in fact, the whole point of putting your MUD on the list. I only had a problem with Mihaly trying to claim that his listing was somehow benefitting everyone else, and that his abuses were amplifying said claimed benefits.
|