Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 08-29-2007, 05:51 AM

Yes, if they require payment and/or donations to play. The idea of the listings is that you have to be truthful. Some people may lie, but the same is true of all options - people listing their LPmud as "custom", or claiming to have been created years before the codebase they're based on, etc. Yet those options are still considered to be worth including, because in the vast majority of cases they provide useful information to the player.

They already are; it's the equivalent of the current "Pay to play Mud" option, which 31 of the muds currently listed on TMS are already using.

I don't think it's at all subjective, but if Lasher feels the meaning could be twisted then it would be a simple matter of clarifying the intent, perhaps even with examples.

You're either based on Diku, or you're not. You're either a pure PK mud, or you're not. You're either created in 1998, or you're not.

The point of the listings is to provide information to players who are looking for muds to play. Giving them more information is a good thing, as long as that information is accurate.

Lasher's four choices cover the main payment models in such a way that there's very little room for intentional misinterpretation. While I would certainly like to see more options, I can't think of a way to do so without making them fairly open to exploitation (such as the sword from Cratylus's example, which can be purchased for $50 or earned for 'free' with 67 years of play).

I don't think Lasher's approach is ideal, but it's still a big improvement over what we've currently got, and combined with the text area it seems to address most of the valid concerns.

At this point I think most suggestions have been covered, so it's mainly a case of ignoring the distractors, finalising the wording, and waiting to hear Lasher's views.

Here's one other random observation: As we're using checkboxes rather than radio buttons, that means muds can choose not to click any of the options at all, and instead simply fill in the text area. Is this desirable?

08-29-2007, 05:51 AM	#231
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Re: What does "Free" Mean? Yes, if they require payment and/or donations to play. The idea of the listings is that you have to be truthful. Some people may lie, but the same is true of all options - people listing their LPmud as "custom", or claiming to have been created years before the codebase they're based on, etc. Yet those options are still considered to be worth including, because in the vast majority of cases they provide useful information to the player. They already are; it's the equivalent of the current "Pay to play Mud" option, which 31 of the muds currently listed on TMS are already using. I don't think it's at all subjective, but if Lasher feels the meaning could be twisted then it would be a simple matter of clarifying the intent, perhaps even with examples. You're either based on Diku, or you're not. You're either a pure PK mud, or you're not. You're either created in 1998, or you're not. The point of the listings is to provide information to players who are looking for muds to play. Giving them more information is a good thing, as long as that information is accurate. Lasher's four choices cover the main payment models in such a way that there's very little room for intentional misinterpretation. While I would certainly like to see more options, I can't think of a way to do so without making them fairly open to exploitation (such as the sword from Cratylus's example, which can be purchased for $50 or earned for 'free' with 67 years of play). I don't think Lasher's approach is ideal, but it's still a big improvement over what we've currently got, and combined with the text area it seems to address most of the valid concerns. At this point I think most suggestions have been covered, so it's mainly a case of ignoring the distractors, finalising the wording, and waiting to hear Lasher's views. Here's one other random observation: As we're using checkboxes rather than radio buttons, that means muds can choose not to click any of the options at all, and instead simply fill in the text area. Is this desirable?