[Threshold]

Reading is Fundamental.

That's already been explained multiple times.

And the flamebait you just posted is a nice little example of why.

[Valg]

For someone who frequently demands moderation of a thread, you certainly don't mind dishing out sarcasm.

I don't see how you could construe Don's most recent post as flamebait, or how all the "flaming the flames" posts in this thread are somehow an improvement. the_logos, Soleil, and John voiced similar viewpoints to Don, and no one pounced on them, aside from you calling one post "ridiculous" and "absurd". The last post from the_logos was after your last topic, and the sentiments behind it are largely identical.

It's definitely not the post in the last couple pages I'd moderate first. Two "Yeah!" posts and Juganothion's flaming-about-flaming post certainly have a lot less to do with the topic, as does your personal attack on me-as-moderator on the previous page.

Again: I use a light hand. I touched two nearly identical posts on the other thread, about 16 pages in. I've warned a couple people on this thread by PM or 'edit text', but I don't intend to start nuking posts left and right because you don't like their contents.

Honestly, step back. Read the thread and ask who is doing the majority of the provocation. It's certainly not me.

[Threshold]

You are a very biased moderator. That is not a personal attack. That is my opinion on your "job" here. You consistently demonstrate enormous bias towards hobby muds and admins and against commercial muds and admins. You also use your moderator position to further your personal grudges against individuals. If you don't like the fact that there are people out there who think this, then either:

1) Change your behavior.

or

2) Quit.

Someone expressing an opinion that you do a very poor job as moderator is not a personal attack. The fact that you label it such is simply more evidence of the original claim.

Now can you please stop posting off topic in my thread?

Thanks.

[Shane]

[The_Disciple]

[quote= (Threshold @ April 26 2006,23:34)]There's no pleasing everyone. Were I a moderator, you wouldn't be on my to-please list, in all honesty -- while there's no doubt that you produce interesting and insightful posts, there's at least an equal proportion of personal attacks, pointless flames, and crackheaded assbaggery.

(Mine are no better, but that's beside the point. I wouldn't try to win me over, either.)

Back on topic...

The idea to exclude MUDS with certain license issues makes logical sense to me. It's a smear on every professional MUD developer who created something great from scratch if they're lumped in with that kind of MUD. In similar fashion, you don't see the pharmaceutical industry giants inviting random underground meth lab owners to join in their associations and major conferences. While the comparison is flattering to them, drawing the very parallel in the first place isn't.

[Threshold]

[DonathinFrye]

[nhl]

It's scary when I have to start rethinking my position and start agreeing more and more with KaVir, who quite accurately put it in the beginning of the thread, that this thread serves no value.

The discussion has (yet again) derailed. The original statement was to create a collection of professionally run MUDs, because some players might prefer those games. Fine - list collected. What happens now with the list? Is anybody expecting players to pick a new MUD based on a thread like this or will that MUD list actually be featured somewhere?

Personally I think one can either make a list for potential players that contain professional run MUDs (with the criteria that they have fulltime employees) and argue that as quality, or one can make a list with arbitrary criterias such as "MUDs with DIKU licenses can't be included", "MUDs with names tarting with M can't join" but this list has now mingled up both - Midevia is every bit as professionally run (I'm refering to professional as having full-time staff) as many other games on the list, and the end user is just as likely to receive a favorable gaming experience on it, than from any of the other MUDs. The exclusion of some games, based on their license model or violation, means that the aim of creating a list so that players can pick quality game they like, goes out the window.

[the_logos]

My problem with excluding Medievia based on this is that they are alleged to have violated the license, but it's never been proven in any sort of legal setting. One can allege whatever one wants about any MUD one wants. I consider it simply a matter of prudence and fairness to reserve judgement until/unless the issue is resolved in the only arena that matters in a legal debate: the courts.

There's no question that meth lab owners are violating the law. One cannot legally produce meth. There is a big question about whether Medievia is violating the law, and no amount of arguing or submitted 'proof' on some internet forums is going to replace the reasoned, measured (by comparison anyway) judgement of a court.

I can tell you that if Medievia showed up at game developer conferences, nobody there would blink an eye. They'd be as welcome as Microsoft is, regardless of the fact that Microsoft has been proven in a court of law to have violated the law, as has just about every big company. Were someone to point out to the other professional developers at a games conference that there is contention over Medievia's license status, the essentially universal response would be that it's hardly that big of a deal. License fights go on all the time, and the place where they get resolved is the court room, not some discussion forums.

In short, keeping Medievia off the list is pandering to the torch and pitchfork crowd rather than doing the right thing vis a vis the stated purpose of this thread.

--matt

[KaVir]

Interesting. Tell me, if I were to procure a copy of Achaea and use it to run my own mud, would you reserve judgement until the issue was resolved in the courts?

Let's suppose I felt your licence/copyright restrictions were old fashioned and that they shouldn't apply to me, because I'd made many changes to the original code.

And for the sake of argument, let's also assume that you'd personally examined the code for my mud (with a document I'd signed under penalty of perjury stating that the code you examined was indeed what I was using) and that you'd discovered that a large percentage of it was identical to your copyrighted work.

Obviously you'd take legal action - but until the matter was decided in court (or if it was decided in my favour) would you act as if nothing had happened?

Would anyone blink an eye if I turned up with my "I started out as a copy of Achaea, but I've changed so much that I'm now something completely different" mud?

And would you object to seeing my mud on the list (assuming I gave up my day job and started running the mud for a living)?

[Valg]

I don't think it's fair to apply that set of standards to every decision made here. For example, when various MUDs were caught stuffing the TMS ballot box illegally, no one deamnded that level of investigation. (IMO, the evidence that Medievia is at least guilty of plagiarism is more complete and compelling than the evidence that those MUDs needed to be booted from the voting list, although I agree they should have been booted.)

If Threshold wants to sponsor an external resource, more power to him to list whoever he wants, just as it's Synozeer's decision who can be listed here. There's a plus (more options makes the resource more valuable) and a minus (the 'meth dealer' effect of grouping the other games with Medievia) to be weighed.

You, me, and others are, of course, free to discuss that weighing, so long as it doesn't devolve into repetitive back-and-forth like the previous, longer thread eventually did. If you feel that the list is devalued by his leadership of it, you could sponsor your own resource.

If he plans to use this site as the resource, then I think it's fair to question his "ownership" of it. (His initiative is welcome, but it's not as if he was elected/appointed by anyone.) For example, I'd be willing to sticky a pair of lists (free/commercial) on the Advertising forums if I felt they were sufficiently useful and fair, so TMS users could readily locate their preferred flavor of MUD. But then you open up a can of worms about who decides what is/isn't on those lists, as this thread illustrates. External resources skirt this problem nicely enough, but other solutions are possible, particularly if we involve Synozeer.

[Soleil]

[KaVir]

I covered that with the next paragraph: "Let's suppose I felt your licence/copyright restrictions were old fashioned and that they shouldn't apply to me, because I'd made many changes to the original code."

[Lark]

Ye-...okay, sorry.

One guy brought up another mud that'd fit into the category, he must've gotten lost in the din of my compelling one-word arguments.

Age of the Throne Inc.



Kudos to HBDR


Gemstone III is Gemstone IV, too, looking back now.



Credited to Mabus.

[the_logos]

Kavir wrote:
No, I wouldn't. However, I also wouldn't expect other people to trust that I, the aggrieved party (well, Iron Realms), am right just because I claim I am. In this case, the only people we -ever- hear from are parties that are irrelevant to the matter. It's not any of the DIKU authors on these boards attacking Medievia. It's third parties.

No, but again, I'm the aggrieved party in that case.

People accused Everquest of ripping off DIKU. Didn't stop Sony from being welcomed.

No. I'd object to your MUD, but it would fit the list criteria. One has nothing to do with the other.

--matt

[the_logos]

Valg wrote:
No, it's not fair to apply that set of standards to every decision. It's fair to apply it to legal issues. Stuffing the ballot box here on TMS is not a legal issue. It's TMS internal issue in which the proper judge is Synozeer, and thus he handled it.

The DIKU license is a legal issue, on the other hand, and thus should be resolved in the courts. Nobody here is even an intellectual property expert, much less a judge, and to act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Medievia is guilty of violating the DIKU license is not justice, at all. If the DIKU owners feel strongly enough that they are being harmed, they will avail themselves of their options under the law. If they don't feel they're being harmed enough to go to the trouble of a lawsuit then I think it's simply quite unfair to assume Medievia is guilty, regardless of how distasteful some people might find Vyrce to be.

I mean look, I'm not defending him personally. He's not someone I'd choose to spend my time with or do business with, but that's not really relevant to anything, and I feel like the -main- reason Medievia gets attacked so much is because people dislike him personally. Plenty of other MUDs are engaging in the same things that others have used as an excuse to attack Medievia for, including muds in the top 10 on TMS, and it's really only Medievia that seems to get attacked regularly.

Anyway, this is off-topic. It's Threshold's list and if he wants to exclude Medievia, I respect that, though I also disagree. As long as it is his list and not some sort of 'official' Topmudsites list, I guess it also doesn't matter much.

--matt

[Splork]

I agree, keep midievia off the list...

yawn

[Threshold]

1) Can you provide any information/links/citations that show this mud complies with the criterion of the list?

2) Correcting the Gemstone link in the next post.

3) Honestly, I am not pushing any personal opinion, moral judgement, or legal opinion by not having Medievia on the list currently. My reason is solely the desire to avoid the type of flamefest that is already starting (the whole DIKU/Medievia debate) before they are even listed. Of course, if the flamewar happens anyway, maybe I might as well put them on the list. My personal preference would be to list them, out of a sense of accuracy, but I must admit that the nature of this medium (TMS forums) makes me hesitant.

[Threshold]

Updated List

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: September 1997 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: January 1998, -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 1989, -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 2001 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: February 1996 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: December 1989 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: April 2003 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: September 1995 - no telnet -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: October 2004 - -

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'></span></span> - Founded: June 1996 - -

[John]

I don't think is the right thread to discuss whether or not we should judge Medieva. Perhaps start another thread for that? (Yes while matt did say he thinks they shouldn't be judged, he said it as part of saying why he thinks they should be on the list, which is on topic. Let's not get side-tracked by a tangent discussion).

While an interesting post, it really is better left for another thread.

[EDIT]: Sorry Valg for the armchair modding.