09-27-2007, 05:25 PM | #481 |
Legend
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Not for nothing, but a visit to - my first ever - shows the benefits of membership, with $ indicating payment - right out there where everyone can see it.
If they're cool showing it out front on their website, they should be cool specifying in a MUD listing that they accept money. I don't think they're ripping anyone off or being deceptive at all. |
09-27-2007, 05:31 PM | #482 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
No, neither do I.
So can you give us an example of a MUD that you think is being deceptive? --matt |
09-27-2007, 05:34 PM | #483 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Home MUD: Lost Souls
Posts: 199
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Yeah. Okay. I suppose, then, the metric should be the observable behavior of the MUD admins, with official policy being the first-blush validation of this. If their actual behavior should contradict their stated policy, people can do the usual outrage and pillorying, and Lasher can change their status if he finds the evidence presented amid the outrage and pillorying to be compelling. Or Lasher can choose to keep out of it, and people can do their outrage and pillorying in reviews. How's that work for you?
|
09-27-2007, 05:50 PM | #484 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Name: Chris
Location: Wolverhampton, UK
Posts: 358
|
Re: What does "Free" Mean?
Yeah I meant to mention that but somebody distracted me so I didn't quite finish the post
|
09-27-2007, 05:52 PM | #485 |
Legend
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,425
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Hello people. That is why I stated that we are wasting our time with this argument and should allow Lasher to get on to better things like re-implimenting the player reviews. All of this can be taken in a review.
As for this statement. Logos said it succinctly and if you didn't get his response, read Proxy Server, AOL, et al. |
09-27-2007, 05:55 PM | #486 |
Legend
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Nope, for the simple fact that I haven't been out hunting for them and I've really never made it my business to police the parsing of game advertising. Beyond that, in my opinion, this thread shouldn't even be about pointing fingers at specific MUDs and making accusations. It's about whether (and how) to quantify some of this extra information about all MUDs, and I favor it.
|
09-27-2007, 06:41 PM | #487 |
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
No, that's not the point I'm making. In the post of yours that I originally responded to regarding this issue, you stated "I'm saying that we should comment on reality, not the wishful thinking that admin policy often represents."
And what I'm saying is that a mud listing itself as "roleplaying mandatory" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about the Simpsons, just as a mud listing itself as "G rated" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about adult-oriented subject matter. In other words, if you really believe that the listings shouldn't reflect admin policy, then by the same line of reasoning muds shouldn't be allowed to list themselves as "roleplaying mandatory", "G rated", "Category: Medieval Fantasy", etc. Because, just like the case of players selling items in secret, none of these things can actually be prevented. Yes, you can ban someone you catch talking about the Simpsons, or having mudsex - but only if you catch them, and only after the fact. There's no way to ensure that someone else won't have mudsex in front of a newbie next week, and banning them afterwards won't change the fact that they were exposed to adult-oriented material. Ah, my mistake. But if we're talking specifically about players, then it goes back to the points I made above. If Lasher agrees that basing the listings on mud policies is acceptable, then it's fine to simply ignore transactions that are outside of the muds control. If he doesn't, then obviously the whole listing system will need an overhaul. If it's an online sale, there'll be records - paypal, credit card, whatever. It's true that a player driving/flying to visit the mud owner with a suitcase full of unmarked bank notes wouldn't leave a trail, but I think we could overlook the possibility of such transactions without overly damaging the reliability of the listings. Lasher created this thread, and he's more than capable of closing it if he feels it's no longer beneficial. Likewise it's up to Lasher, not you, to decide what the TMS priorities are, and which things are worth implementing. |
09-27-2007, 06:57 PM | #488 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Home MUD: Lost Souls
Posts: 199
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
He also said some things that relate to the fact that accusing people who disagree with you of being sock puppets is a very common, very poor argumentation tactic out in the wilds of teh intarwebs.
|
09-27-2007, 07:49 PM | #489 |
Legend
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,425
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
If I did that, I'd accuse half the posters here. Please, CP, keep it in context. I showed proof of the posers and proof that this was an Admin argument not a player argument. I see nothing that shows otherwise.
|
09-27-2007, 07:53 PM | #490 |
Legend
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,425
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
How about reading the posts and you will see I never said I'm dictating anything.
|
09-27-2007, 08:08 PM | #491 |
New Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Name: Tricky
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 14
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
I am no ones "sock puppet"
As for the topic of this thread, I still maintain that "Free" means free, as in - "Without cost. With no incumbrance." Tricky |
09-27-2007, 08:24 PM | #492 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Home MUD: Lost Souls
Posts: 199
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
You showed what? I didn't notice your laundry list proving anything. Who exactly did you prove to be a "poser"?
(Wow, it's just like hanging out with skaters. Except some of them actually know that the word they're using is "poseur". Try dictionary.com.) |
09-27-2007, 10:09 PM | #493 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Home MUD: The Dreaming City
Posts: 60
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
I'm not a player. And given I've been a (mostly lurking) member here since 2003 without ever once having somebody's arm shoved up my fundament, I'm pretty sure I'm not a sock puppet.
I'm also pretty sure I haven't made comments on both sides, at least not in this thread (which two sides are we talking about anyways?). I prefer the four-option method over the current two-option method and over the similarly useless two-option method that's been proposed in this thread or the two-option-but-is-really-a-nine-or-ten-fuzzy-overlapping-options method. I'm not even particularly fond of the five-option method, though that is largely because the current wording for it somewhat collapses the neat and distinct categories of the four-option method. |
09-27-2007, 10:15 PM | #494 |
Legend
Join Date: Aug 2007
Name: NewWorlds
Home MUD: New Worlds
Posts: 1,425
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Poser dude, as in "poser: a person who poses." Like, duh?
As for what did I prove? Um, try reading what I posted. I can't be giving multiple explanations to you if you don't read. But I proved that it is MOSTLY ADMINS not PLAYERS that care about this thread. As for posers, sheesh, guess I have to quote myself. I stated numbers 3 and 6 they are: Quick, send them a PM, maybe they'll rush here and deny it! |
09-27-2007, 11:36 PM | #495 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
So because I am not an avid poster here, I am discredited.
The reason I do not post here was stated in my posts. The general attitude of the majority of users here is very hostile. I try to stay away from time bombs. Believe what you will, no skin off my back. Though, I am logged in fairly often just reading, I didn't just log on twice and only to post here. I just do not post. Prime example of why I do not post here and probably will not post here again. Last edited by Arabis : 09-28-2007 at 12:02 AM. Reason: Grammar. |
09-28-2007, 12:20 AM | #496 |
Administrator
Join Date: May 2005
Name: Derek
Location: Orlando
Posts: 357
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
No sir, one person with no higher or lower standing here than yourself suggesting that a person's post count might be related to how much we should listen to them is a far cry from discredited. Your post was read and your opinion noted, they all were.
|
09-28-2007, 12:32 AM | #497 |
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
I didn't mean to insinuate that I had been discredited by the administration, my reply was directed to Newworlds. I made my post in haste being, truthfully, offended by the accusation and failed to quote him or her. My apologies.
|
09-28-2007, 02:48 AM | #498 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
That's the problem though. This behavior isn't inherently observable. There is no evidence to be had of an admin wishes to ensure there is none.
--matt |
09-28-2007, 03:04 AM | #499 |
Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Mill Valley, California
Posts: 2,305
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Nod, I understand that. Both of those are, by their very definition, observable within the MUD.
An admin selling something to a player is inherently not observable unless the admin wishes to make it so. It's not really about whether it can be prevented so much as it is about what is actually fundamentally verifiable. In the one case (roleplaying mandatory/g-rated) we're talking about something that happens within the MUD. In the other case, we're talking about something that happens outside the MUD. When someone sells an item to another player for real money (whether admin or player), this is something that happens outside the MUD. The transfer of the actual item happens inside the MUD, but that action is 100% indistinguishable in and of itself from a "legitimate" in-game purchase. (It's the context around it that can help operators catch some RMT transactors.) Indeed, but one can actually catch it. One can't catch RMT unless one of the parties is sloppy, because the "violation" happens outside of the game. Sure, if Lasher agrees with anything re:TMS it's fine. Ignoring transactions outside of the muds control is like writing a guidebook that leads tourists to believe there are no pickpockets in New York because it's against the law there though. Cash or money order transactions leave no trail that is verifiable by TMS. We receive thousands of dollars of payments in cash/money orders each month, so I don't think it's really accurate to dismiss those methods as difficult. You don't need to drive or fly. You just need to stick an envelope in your mailbox. Darn easy to do. --matt |
09-28-2007, 03:48 AM | #500 |
Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Home MUD: Threshold RPG
Posts: 1,260
|
Re: The Cold Hard Facts
Sure it can be. If it is inaccurate information, it is bad. If the information is provided solely for the benefit of a select few, it is bad. If it will create more flamewars and arguments on these forums, it is bad. If Lasher gives into 3-4 admins and makes this change, it is bad. When you reward a certain behavior, you can expect such behavior to continue. It won't be long until those same 3-4 admins are creating a new flamewar to change something else on TMS to their personal benefit.
Nobody is against this because they are against information being made available to players. On Threshold, a player cannot even create a character without having every aspect of our payment system(s) explained in detail. So we don't hide anything from anyone. When we required payment to play, we labeled ourselves pay to play here on TMS. We have since dropped that requirement. The problem is that the options as proposed are designed to benefit a specific type of mud at the expense of all others. Specifically, muds that sell merchandise are trying to continue to call themselves free when they are no more free than muds that sell anything else. Also, the idea of "rewarded in game" or "not rewarded in game" is a complete farce. When players buy something from a mud, or "donate" to the mud, most of them will expect something in return. Whether it is a material reward or just greater access to the admins, they are going to expect it. And the reality is, they will almost always get it. So trying to differentiate between whether or not a payment is rewarded in game or not is just an outrageous and bogus differentiation. People can stomp and fume as much as they want that they "never give such people any advantage!!!!!!!!", but I just don't believe it and I never will. I also think it is incredibly naive to make such a claim, and even more naive to believe it. The fact that the real motive behind this is a handful of MUD admins trying to gain competitive advantage is what motivated me to contribute to this thread from the beginning. I have been in full support of the two options that are actually verifiable and truthful. Does your game take money (in any form) or not? That is ultimately the main issue that players care about. |