Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 09-29-2007, 03:44 PM

That's easily remedied. Rename the option "Payment required to play." A mandatory "donation" is, after all, more properly a subscription/registration fee. This is just an issue of wording, it's not a flaw in the intended scheme of categorization.

That was the whole point of the text box that was to accompany these options. The options break down the range of payment schemes into several well-defined categories and the text box is used to further elaborate on a mud's particular business/donation model. In-game results are pretty easy to define (and have been pretty well defined elsewhere in this thread).

This is a statement of mud policy. I, personally, would generally assume that someone who donates $2000 to such a mud would likely, even if only unconsciously, receive some favorable treatment from the administrators, unless they are just really flush with cash already. For people who only care whether or not money changes hands in some form, this method works just as well as the two option method. For people who wish to distinguish between games which accept cash but claim not to reward it versus games which require money to play or provide perks in exchange for payments, this system has a tremendous advantage over the two option method which is completely worthless for making such a distinction.

Which is fine if that is all you care about. Those supporting the four/five method system are suggesting that at least some players would like to know a bit more than just whether or not the game will accept donations/payments. This is a reasonable assumption that pretty much anyone who has ever handled money should be able to accept. The very first question most players will probably have when being told that a mud accepts donations/payments, is whether or not a payment is actually required to play. People are funny about money like that.

I have yet to see anyone actually pick out a mud in the TMS database that wouldn't fit nicely into one of the four categories in the four-option method. Instead of presenting bogus arguments about the supposed flaws in this method, why don't you provide some concrete examples of where the system would actually break down?

09-29-2007, 03:44 PM	#531
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	Re: The Non-Cold Non-Hard Non-Facts That's easily remedied. Rename the option "Payment required to play." A mandatory "donation" is, after all, more properly a subscription/registration fee. This is just an issue of wording, it's not a flaw in the intended scheme of categorization. That was the whole point of the text box that was to accompany these options. The options break down the range of payment schemes into several well-defined categories and the text box is used to further elaborate on a mud's particular business/donation model. In-game results are pretty easy to define (and have been pretty well defined elsewhere in this thread). This is a statement of mud policy. I, personally, would generally assume that someone who donates $2000 to such a mud would likely, even if only unconsciously, receive some favorable treatment from the administrators, unless they are just really flush with cash already. For people who only care whether or not money changes hands in some form, this method works just as well as the two option method. For people who wish to distinguish between games which accept cash but claim not to reward it versus games which require money to play or provide perks in exchange for payments, this system has a tremendous advantage over the two option method which is completely worthless for making such a distinction. Which is fine if that is all you care about. Those supporting the four/five method system are suggesting that at least some players would like to know a bit more than just whether or not the game will accept donations/payments. This is a reasonable assumption that pretty much anyone who has ever handled money should be able to accept. The very first question most players will probably have when being told that a mud accepts donations/payments, is whether or not a payment is actually required to play. People are funny about money like that. I have yet to see anyone actually pick out a mud in the TMS database that wouldn't fit nicely into one of the four categories in the four-option method. Instead of presenting bogus arguments about the supposed flaws in this method, why don't you provide some concrete examples of where the system would actually break down?