06-19-2004, 03:11 AM | #21 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Just going to add my whole-hearted support, as the person who sends the most traffic here, and who is currently the biggest advertiser, to everything Traithe said.
--matt |
06-19-2004, 04:29 AM | #22 |
New Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10
|
|
06-19-2004, 04:43 AM | #23 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
That's definitely the point! Traffic to this site, however, would drop like a rock if people had to type in a random series of letters every time they wanted to vote.
--matt |
06-19-2004, 05:08 AM | #24 |
New Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 10
|
Probably Matt, but it will at least stop clever scripts like the
one you presented that started this whole thread that actually beat the point of this site. So it is a matter of quantity of traffic over whether the actual traffic fulfills it's purpose (or at least has a chance of it). |
06-19-2004, 05:20 AM | #25 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Yeah, it's a judgement call, no doubt. I advertise here though, and I've got no issue with the current traffic. If the script use became widespread enough and we saw our traffic from topmudsites drop, I'd get concerned. Until then though, the patient is healthy.
--matt |
06-19-2004, 06:28 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 252
|
I noticed something interesting. Matt says that as long as he sends eyeballs here, he should be able to use any method he wants. A rule is clarified saying that he is no longer allowed to use the voting reminder mechanism he was. So then he makes a post telling everyone about a script that was made by a player that lets people vote without sending eyeballs here.
I normally don't have a problem with Matt and a lot of criticisms are made about him that (IMO) are unfounded. But for me, this is deliberate. He's saying "fine, if we're not allowed to remind only those who don't vote, we won't send eyeballs here but still gain the benefits of being ranked on this board." Now in his defence he can say he didn't make the script, but he did bring it to everyone's attention and the fact that he is also harmed by this. But I bet he's relying on the fact that the rule will be changed long before it becomes too much of a concern, because if use of this script becomes wide-spread, Synozeer has more of a problem then Matt as people will stop advertising on his site. Just seems like a very big co-incidence. |
06-19-2004, 09:41 AM | #27 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 35
|
I have never been comfortable with cross-referencing player's i/p addresses from the link on the website with their i/p address in the game to determine who did and did not vote. I could not see a situation in which I would need that information that did not cause me to at least behave or feel differently towards people that did and didn't vote, even if I didn't actually act on it. Not to imply that other MUDs haven't found valid and perfectly "legal" uses for this information, it just doesn't work for me personally.
What we do have on Aardwolf is a command that players can type which basically says "In 12 hours time, remind me to vote". After they type that command, 12 hours later they get a reminder. I guess this technically is sending different output to people based on whether they voted or not, but they have to opt-in to it, it can be turned off at any time and it is not monitored. As for whether or not players are using scripts to vote, I cannot address that as it is off-mud and I have absolutely no way to know even if I had the inclination to try. |
06-19-2004, 01:25 PM | #28 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
And instead imagine what people like Molly would be saying had I NOT brought it up, and someone else did instead, pointing out that it's being used by players of our mud (and no doubt conveniently ignoring the fact that it's being used by players of other muds too). It's going on whether I bring it up or not. Which would you prefer?
--matt |
06-19-2004, 01:29 PM | #29 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but how is that sending different output to people based on whether they've voted or not? Do they not get a message if they've voted?
--matt |
06-19-2004, 03:22 PM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 35
|
No, they can vote without setting the timer, or they can set the timer even if they haven't voted. There is no cross referencing to any kind of i/p logs to say whether or not someone has voted and players turn if on/off as they choose. To me, that is very different from a 'hey, why haven't you voted?' reminder that is checking their i/p address against the i/p addresses from the web site. It is more of a generic timer. In fact, it might not be a bad feature to turn it into a completely generic timer where players can 'alarm' themselves with message Y in X hours.
As a side note, I don't particularly see anything wrong with what you and Traithe are doing in terms of TMS. My reasons for not cross referencing the i/p logs has nothing to do with 'validity of traffic' to TMS, I just feel that for me personally it crosses a privacy boundary. |
06-19-2004, 03:57 PM | #31 |
New Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27
|
I think the ruling is a good thing and completely disagree with Traithe and the_logos. Nothing should be affected at all by whether or not you've voted.
|
06-19-2004, 04:27 PM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Home MUD: Lusternia
Posts: 191
|
Two questions.
1. What's the difference between the zmud script opening and closing a window to vote, and the voter who closes the window immediately after he or she voted? It seems to me that is the sort of voter that this zmud script is designed for. Many, many people just want to vote for their MUD but who don't really browse the site (no offense). 2. What's the logic in the rule that forbids MUDs from turning off a reminder message after they voted? I understand it wouldn't be proper to penalize players for not voting, but turning off a reminder message to remind a player to vote when he or she has already voted seems logical to me. Certainly, I think it is a stretch to call this a "reward" for a player (or a "punishment" for those who don't vote). At the very least, it lets the players know that the MUD administration isn't so dense and incompetent that they can't tell who has voted or hasn't voted. I feel that while rules are necessary, there's a line that is crossed at some point where the rules appear to demand that players who vote must live in a vacuum. Just my opinion, of course. |
06-19-2004, 04:30 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Name: Kite
Posts: 131
|
Heh, the latter is precisely what I've been saying all along, Estarra.
Unfortunately, we don't quite seem to be getting through to anyone. The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is one that comes to mind... |
06-19-2004, 05:35 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Home MUD: 4 Dimensions
Posts: 574
|
Well, people like Molly would probably say, that the apropriate thing to do would have been to privately alert Synozeer of the existance of the script being used commonly on his own and some other muds, instead of publishing the exact wording of the script that totally defeats the intent of the list, and thereby more or less encouraging everyone reading the board to use it as well.
Especially after all the talk about the importance of 'eyeballs'. |
06-19-2004, 08:47 PM | #35 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script, that would accomplish what when it became more widespread? Make us look like we're hiding a "secret" way to get votes? I know #### well some people out there would have tried to spin it that way.
--matt |
06-19-2004, 08:55 PM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Prague
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 134
|
Much like a parent, you are responsible for what your little ones do...
|
06-20-2004, 03:43 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sweden
Home MUD: 4 Dimensions
Posts: 574
|
I can well believe that was your motive for posting it. What I still don't understand is why you presented it as a magnanimous gift from you to the list.
I mean, look at the heading of this thread: |
06-20-2004, 03:45 AM | #38 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
That's nonsense, and it's only the worst kind of mud admin that treats his or her players as if they were children. Parents are responsible for their children because the children are not capable of making responsible decisions. Most mud players are not children, and if they are, they sure aren't the mud operators' children. They're intelligent adults. Don't patronize them by treating them as if they're kids just because you're the operator of one of the services in their life.
Outside of a game, a mud operator is absolutely not responsible for what people who play his mud do, anymore than the car mechanic he takes his car to is responsible for said person driving drunk and killing someone later. --matt |
06-20-2004, 04:02 AM | #39 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Prague
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 134
|
Well, it wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from the TMS rules.
|
06-20-2004, 11:28 AM | #40 |
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
|
I should point out that it is quite common for certain software applications to be free - but with adverts at the top. However frequent users can (and will) then pay to get rid of the annoying banner/s.
Now if people are willing to shell out cash to get rid of that annoying advertising, don't you think they're going to be even more willing to spend a couple of seconds clicking on a voting link to get the same result? The result is therefore a form of reward (you no longer get spammed) which skews the result just as much as any other. Some muds may only send the voting message once per day, or once per 12 hours, but (until the rule clarification) there was nothing stopping other muds from spamming the player once an hour, or even more frequently. Imagine having a mud which placed the request in every room description, or at the beginning of your prompt, or spammed it once per minute. Like Dunestalker, I agree that the rule clarification is a good thing. Trying to make exceptions is generally a bad idea - better by far to have clear guidelines that can't be bent, because it's clear already that people are more than willing to bend the rules as much as they can. Of course just as a rule clarification in a mud is going to upset those players who benefit from it, so the rule clarification here has upset those mud admin who were benefiting from it. The_logo's was upset when he had to stop rewarding players for voting, so obviously he's going to be equally upset now that he has to stop spamming those who don't - but in the long run, I think it's the fairest solution. |
One-click Zmud voting. - Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Zmud/Cmud help | lovechiefs | Tavern of the Blue Hand | 0 | 01-31-2007 01:20 AM |
Getting a MUD icon in zMUD - Last day! | Ntanel | MUD Announcements | 2 | 02-23-2005 03:13 PM |
zMUD | Enzo | Newbie Help | 4 | 08-29-2004 03:05 PM |
Gmud or zmud? | seekjourn | Newbie Help | 1 | 06-11-2003 01:56 PM |
Just click it... | AlazlamBL | Advertising for Players | 0 | 06-18-2002 09:57 AM |
|
|