[Ytrewtsu]

So what is to stop a mud from giving a mud wide reward of (just for example) a full restore if the mud gets one more vote, nothing. The mud could also give out 1000 experience to everyone on the game. This rule does not prevent muds from giving rewards for voting, it only makes sure that if they do it, they give it to everyone on the mud.   In my opinion, this rule will not do what many people thought it was intended to do (prevent games from rewarding people for voting). What it will do is allow muds to reward their playerbase as a whole instead of singularly (like when they hit the vote button).

Just to be clear, my game does not offer rewards of any nature for voting here (although we do have some players who try to encourage it verbally from time to time).

Ytrewtsu
.02 cents of nothing

[Nevynral]

Interesting, and it certainly puts the practices of certain mud operators in a different perspective if they actually agreed to abide by these policies and then went on renege on the agreement they willingly entered into.

However, whether or not voting incentives are officially allowed, they are obviously tacitly allowed as evidenced by the fact that at least one mud openly defies that rule and hasn't been kicked off the listings.

[Samson]

I've stayed out of this up to now, but this particular quote here just couldn't be let go with one comment. I happen to agree with Ytrewtsu in that this sort of thing does not really stop the practice at all. You simply shift it to a global reward for getting people to vote. The end result is the same. Your players will perceive a reward for voting and thus feel compelled to do so. It's been my experience that the offering of ANY kind of incentive for action results in that action being performed. In the case of employment, the incentive is a paycheck. It's really no different here. The incentive is that the entire mud gets X reward for voting, so they flock here and do just that. If there are indeed muds who are violating the letter of these rules, they should be kicked off. As zealously as the Diku license is defended, I see no reason why TMS rules shouldn't get equal zealousness.

As for the whole debate about P2P, I personally don't like the idea of paying for a mud. Especially if they also charge for the software I need to collect AND assess a monthly subscription. If that makes me a software pirate, as was hinted at pages ago, so be it. I fail to see how that could be so though. I'd be all for P2P muds simply being open about it. Would solve everything. Stick a $ in the ranking list.

[Soki]

Please dont' forget that the boards and the "membership" were reset within the past year. Many administrators who appear "new" have actually been a part of TMS for over three years. I, for one, had over 200 posts when we went to the new boards, but I haven't had as much time to be active as I used to now that there's a new baby in my life.

I've always looked at TMS as more than a banner exchange, but I also acknowledge the fact that muds ARE exchanging users because of this site. There's no one thing that TMS is, and it's different things for different people. I don't reallly feel that it's necessary to try to make people feel completely unwelcomed simply because they don't run their mud the same way as others.

[imported_Synozeer]

Just a quick note - I'm still working on the rewards rules. I might not allow rewards, period. I've been getting some useful help from Matt @ Achaea.

-Synozeer

[Threshold]

[Alajha]

Sorta, but the rest of your post was so pathetically petty and unimportant it actually downplayed this snippet.

[Threshold]

Molly summed it up correctly in my view. Having the most players doesn't make you the best mud.

I think only the most naive sort of mud newbie thinks # of people online = quality of game.

[Mason]

I understand that there are p2p administrators who have been her many years.  That is why I said "newly arrived" adminstrators.

[Tavish]

[Orion Elder]

[Molly]

I believe we must accept that there will always be some unscrupulous persons who try to abuse any system at the expense of others, be it income tax, health insurance or just Mud Ranking Lists.

However, as long as those persons get exposed to public disgust and ridicule, I also believe that in the long run they hurt themselves as well as the Community. At least in the case of this list, people with some common sense will dissociate themselves from such sleazy tactics, and react by staying well away from the Mud in question. As for the Twinks, who obviously won’t care one way or another because they are Twinks, they won’t be any great loss to the Community anyhow. Few Mud administrators like Twinks as players.

I may be overstepping a line here, but this statement made me extremely curious. I thought Matt @ Achaea was the one that caused this entire problem. In what way is he being helpful now?

[KaVir]

No, the "general attitude" is that a mud which specifically caters to the masses will sacrifice quality in order to attain quantity - and that isn't a phenomenon unique to muds.

Which would you rather add - a groundbreaking technical feature which was unnoticable from a players perspective, or a new "ninja" class which would attract a few new players? The answer depends on your personal priorities.

A commercial mud, by it's very nature, has to reorganise those priorities - it's no longer a hobby, but a business. It might be nice to add a "cool new feature", but if it doesn't add anything to the gameplay then (from a business point of view) it's probably not worth adding - particularly not when you could spend that time developing something which will improve your profits (and for a commericial mud, "players = profit").

Some free muds have a similar attitude, although this is not always the case - but there is certainly some disdain towards those who (as you put it) "sell out" by catering to the players at the expense of their original vision. I suppose you could compare that to the "ex-underground singer" who changes the words in his song to avoid offending people, or shortens the song to fit in a commercial break at the end, or changes his clothes to something more "socially acceptable", etc.

For many of us developing muds as a hobby, the fun comes from pushing the boundries of what has been done before. Innovation is the goal, and the playerbase is just something that happens on the way. For a commercial mud (unless it has very poor business management) the goal is to get a large playerbase, and any innovations are just stepping stones to get there.

[imported_Synozeer]

He's assisting me with the best way to word the rules so that people can't use loop holes to abuse it. Here's what Matt suggested so far:

I'm still contemplating the best mix of rules and fairness, so any suggestions are welcome.

-Synozeer

[Terloch]

Honestly, just don't allow rewards period, let sites stand on their own merit, not the merit of their rewards system. And yes, before anyone even says anything, I will happily stop giving out anything for getting to certain voting ranks or any such reward of any sort myself on my own mud...

[truthfulthomas]

I honestly fail how to see this would make any sort of difference. Any mud administration with even a shred of sense with regards to attracting players is going to write a description for the rankings list that will encourage players to take a closer look and then hopefully go on to try out the mud in question. Some commercial muds may figure announcing a free trial period will be a good draw, others may just opt to leave out the fact that the mud requires a fee in order to play and let the player discover that once they've had a closer look at what the mud has to offer. There is nothing underhanded or unethical about either approach. Either way the player will know a fee is involved before any sort of commitment or time and/or emotional investment is made to the mud in question. And any potential player with even a modicum of concern about not wasting their time is going to at least check out the info page in order to see if the mud has the sort of features that they would be looking for. Most players probably would not need more than a few seconds time to discover that a mud is pay-to-play and then make a desicion based on that as to whether or not they are still going to consider the mud for future play.

[Molly]

I agree with Terloch on this. Make it: No rewards for voting are allowed, period. Short and simple.
Too longwinded and complicated rules, and nobody is going to read them.

And there always will be unscrupulous people who’ll use loopholes to abuse the system, you can never make anything 100% foolproof against people like that.

[Alaire]

[Mason]

I don't understand the 80% every twelve hours rule.  As I read it, though it doesn't allow specific character rewards, it would be acceptable to say, "10% exp bonus will be renewed every 12 hours as long as we receive 50 votes within that time period."  Though this would be different then the no-holds barred rules of before, it still seems to have the same effect - providing players with repeated in-game rewards

[imported_Synozeer]