Tavern of the Blue Hand

naubol · 12-12-2005, 06:53 PM

no, all other forms are not the same.

one form threatens and is not optin or optout, but mandatory 'deletion' of reminder message.

One forces you to 'lie' to avoid spammy messages or to choose not to vote. (med)

One is opt-in, and you can never see it again anytime you elect. (aard)

One treats you like a child (med)

One treats you like an adult that can make his or her own decision (aard).

One threatens its playerbase (med).

One canvasses its playerbase through good will and polite requests (aard).

Med's owner started a topic called "Vote medieva! or else..." and thats not scummy to you? You don't see aard's owner Lasher coming on here to pull such peurile hijinks.

N

Aeternitas · 12-12-2005, 06:53 PM

Again, this is only if they LIE about it. I'm not in a position that makes the determination on how exactly things will be upheld, but, so far as I can determine, if you don't vote, and never claim to have voted, you've got a clean slate. Same as if you vote, and say you did. If you don't vote, and pop in the command, you've lied to the Gods.

James Mancuso · 12-12-2005, 06:55 PM

I'm tempted to log on to Medievia, just to see what all the positive hype is. I know enough about the negative to never, ever play there for an extended period of time for any purpose but to observe, but so many naive natives have heralded it to be the most exemplary mud there is that my curiousity has, sadly, been piqued.

From what I've read about it, concerning the features and the like, it doesn't seem to be that special. Perhaps I'm mistaken and I'll end up loving Medievia. Far more likely I'll be struck by space debris before I log on and never get the chance. Pity me!

Oh, and, uh, something to make this even slightly on topic:

Bad Medievia, bad. No. Stop it. >:|

annelise · 12-12-2005, 06:55 PM

This quote seems a bit harsh to me, although, how is Vryce able to get the IPs of people posting on a public forum?

Aeternitas · 12-12-2005, 07:03 PM

Naubol...whether or not the tag exists, it does not have to be seen. On ALL of my players, I see a little yellow :. Very unobtrusive, and VERY simple to do. It is not forced down anyone's throat, a simple line of command that can be copied and pasted FROM THIS FORUM will make it disappear, or blend in as you choose. No one is forced to lie. Forcing someone to lie is as dishonest as lying oneself. As far as treating anyone like a child? No, I see a request to vote for the MUD, which, if any playerbase-canvassing is to be allowed, is perfectly A-OK. And again with the threats, I'm done beating a dead horse on that topic. If you cannot READ, then I'm sorry.

Soleil · 12-12-2005, 07:11 PM

BTW, Vryce didn't start that topic, it was merely a help file cut and pasted by one of our oh-so-loyal players.

James Mancuso · 12-12-2005, 07:25 PM

You can hardly expect the player of a mud run by dishonest thieves possessed of decidedly substandard integrity to have any of their own, Soleil. It shouldn't be any surprise that some of the more vocal members of the Anti-Mercthievia Coalition are people who've played on it.

Danlor · 12-12-2005, 07:54 PM

Another thing I like even less than what the mud has done is people creating accounts just to come on and trash the mud. Don't do that, people, it's not honest, and it's not right.

James Mancuso · 12-12-2005, 08:00 PM

Aardwolf · 12-12-2005, 08:24 PM

Matt, I've always supported you and your muds, I'm very disappointed you didn't just email and ASK me before posting several notes about Aardwolf "cheating".

Firstly, the Aardwolf command is a reminder, a 12 hour timer, nothing more nothing less. It is not tracked and there is no in-game consequence implied or otherwise to voting or not voting. Secondly, and most importantly, I also asked Adam before adding it and was told it was ok as long as it was simply that, a timer.

I guess you could type 'ivoted' and not vote, but there would be absolutely no point to it unless you believed for some reason it really did affect your character. If someone has that little trust in what is published by the game's admin I would have to wonder why they'd play the mud in the first place.

What I'm struggling to understand now is how you don't see Medieva's implied threat as breaking the rules. Isn't an implied threat for not voting basically an in-game incentive to vote?!

Aardwolf · 12-12-2005, 08:27 PM

Danlor · 12-12-2005, 08:36 PM

imported_Synozeer · 12-12-2005, 09:42 PM

I'd like to clarify the rules and make an amendment to them. By the letter of the rules, what Medievia was doing is not against the rules, but more against the "spirit" of the rules. Aardwolf's system is entirely optional and a player's choice, with no positive or negative effects for players opting to use it or not.

Therefore, I am amending the rules (with the bolded part being the addition to these rules) to the following:

You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes. You cannot display different messages based on whether someone voted or not, or reward a player for voting by not showing messages. You also cannot have a system that "nags" a player about voting (regardless of whether they voted or not) unless it is totally voluntary with no positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system, and it must allow the player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect.

Just for future reference, threatening a player base to vote "or else" would be against the rules, as it is a negative effect for not voting - the same as if an imm offers to reward players or change the status of the mud or anything in the mud if they vote.

Those muds in violation of this will have until Wednesday to de-implement their current system to follow the current rules. Note that if you feel something MAY go against the rules, but you're not sure, ASK me first, otherwise I may decide going against the spirit of the rules will be enough to enact penalties.

Adam

Danlor · 12-12-2005, 10:03 PM

Dunestalker · 12-12-2005, 10:06 PM

*applauds Synozeer*

mild mudder · 12-12-2005, 10:35 PM

Nicely done, thank you for listening to us.

For the record, I would have thanked you for listening anyway. It's nice to have a place to sound off when we see something that we feel is incredibly out of line sometimes.

Aardwolf · 12-12-2005, 10:38 PM

imported_Synozeer · 12-12-2005, 10:50 PM

Whoops, that's what I meant. Post above edited to reflect that.

Adam

Damon · 12-12-2005, 11:32 PM

So...why is it that whenever Medievia ranks No. 1 a reason is found to knock them down?

I think it's completely unfair to have Aardthingy be allowed and not have Medievia's vote message be allowed...people can turn off the prompt with two words. You could say global vote messages are illegal because they are unavoidable and you can't opt out of them. It's the same thing!

Aggravated.

Brody · 12-13-2005, 12:12 AM

Because Medievia's staff seems intent on giving people the ammunition to do so?

12-12-2005, 06:53 PM	#41
naubol New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 4	no, all other forms are not the same. one form threatens and is not optin or optout, but mandatory 'deletion' of reminder message. One forces you to 'lie' to avoid spammy messages or to choose not to vote. (med) One is opt-in, and you can never see it again anytime you elect. (aard) One treats you like a child (med) One treats you like an adult that can make his or her own decision (aard). One threatens its playerbase (med). One canvasses its playerbase through good will and polite requests (aard). Med's owner started a topic called "Vote medieva! or else..." and thats not scummy to you? You don't see aard's owner Lasher coming on here to pull such peurile hijinks. N

12-12-2005, 06:53 PM	#42
Aeternitas New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6	Again, this is only if they LIE about it. I'm not in a position that makes the determination on how exactly things will be upheld, but, so far as I can determine, if you don't vote, and never claim to have voted, you've got a clean slate. Same as if you vote, and say you did. If you don't vote, and pop in the command, you've lied to the Gods.

12-12-2005, 06:55 PM	#43
James Mancuso New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3	I'm tempted to log on to Medievia, just to see what all the positive hype is. I know enough about the negative to never, ever play there for an extended period of time for any purpose but to observe, but so many naive natives have heralded it to be the most exemplary mud there is that my curiousity has, sadly, been piqued. From what I've read about it, concerning the features and the like, it doesn't seem to be that special. Perhaps I'm mistaken and I'll end up loving Medievia. Far more likely I'll be struck by space debris before I log on and never get the chance. Pity me! Oh, and, uh, something to make this even slightly on topic: Bad Medievia, bad. No. Stop it. >:\|

12-12-2005, 06:55 PM	#44
annelise New Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 8	This quote seems a bit harsh to me, although, how is Vryce able to get the IPs of people posting on a public forum?

12-12-2005, 07:03 PM	#45
Aeternitas New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6	Naubol...whether or not the tag exists, it does not have to be seen. On ALL of my players, I see a little yellow :. Very unobtrusive, and VERY simple to do. It is not forced down anyone's throat, a simple line of command that can be copied and pasted FROM THIS FORUM will make it disappear, or blend in as you choose. No one is forced to lie. Forcing someone to lie is as dishonest as lying oneself. As far as treating anyone like a child? No, I see a request to vote for the MUD, which, if any playerbase-canvassing is to be allowed, is perfectly A-OK. And again with the threats, I'm done beating a dead horse on that topic. If you cannot READ, then I'm sorry.

12-12-2005, 07:11 PM	#46
Soleil Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 147	BTW, Vryce didn't start that topic, it was merely a help file cut and pasted by one of our oh-so-loyal players.

12-12-2005, 07:25 PM	#47
James Mancuso New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3	You can hardly expect the player of a mud run by dishonest thieves possessed of decidedly substandard integrity to have any of their own, Soleil. It shouldn't be any surprise that some of the more vocal members of the Anti-Mercthievia Coalition are people who've played on it.

12-12-2005, 07:54 PM	#48
Danlor Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 41	Another thing I like even less than what the mud has done is people creating accounts just to come on and trash the mud. Don't do that, people, it's not honest, and it's not right.

12-12-2005, 08:00 PM	#49
James Mancuso New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 3

12-12-2005, 08:24 PM	#50
Aardwolf Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 35	Matt, I've always supported you and your muds, I'm very disappointed you didn't just email and ASK me before posting several notes about Aardwolf "cheating". Firstly, the Aardwolf command is a reminder, a 12 hour timer, nothing more nothing less. It is not tracked and there is no in-game consequence implied or otherwise to voting or not voting. Secondly, and most importantly, I also asked Adam before adding it and was told it was ok as long as it was simply that, a timer. I guess you could type 'ivoted' and not vote, but there would be absolutely no point to it unless you believed for some reason it really did affect your character. If someone has that little trust in what is published by the game's admin I would have to wonder why they'd play the mud in the first place. What I'm struggling to understand now is how you don't see Medieva's implied threat as breaking the rules. Isn't an implied threat for not voting basically an in-game incentive to vote?!

12-12-2005, 08:27 PM	#51
Aardwolf Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 35

12-12-2005, 08:36 PM	#52
Danlor Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 41

12-12-2005, 09:42 PM	#53
imported_Synozeer Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 88	I'd like to clarify the rules and make an amendment to them. By the letter of the rules, what Medievia was doing is not against the rules, but more against the "spirit" of the rules. Aardwolf's system is entirely optional and a player's choice, with no positive or negative effects for players opting to use it or not. Therefore, I am amending the rules (with the bolded part being the addition to these rules) to the following: You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes. You cannot display different messages based on whether someone voted or not, or reward a player for voting by not showing messages. You also cannot have a system that "nags" a player about voting (regardless of whether they voted or not) unless it is totally voluntary with no positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system, and it must allow the player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect. Just for future reference, threatening a player base to vote "or else" would be against the rules, as it is a negative effect for not voting - the same as if an imm offers to reward players or change the status of the mud or anything in the mud if they vote. Those muds in violation of this will have until Wednesday to de-implement their current system to follow the current rules. Note that if you feel something MAY go against the rules, but you're not sure, ASK me first, otherwise I may decide going against the spirit of the rules will be enough to enact penalties. Adam

12-12-2005, 10:03 PM	#54
Danlor Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 41

12-12-2005, 10:06 PM	#55
Dunestalker New Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 27	applauds Synozeer

12-12-2005, 10:35 PM	#56
mild mudder New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 11	Nicely done, thank you for listening to us. For the record, I would have thanked you for listening anyway. It's nice to have a place to sound off when we see something that we feel is incredibly out of line sometimes.

12-12-2005, 10:38 PM	#57
Aardwolf Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 35

12-12-2005, 10:50 PM	#58
imported_Synozeer Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 88	Whoops, that's what I meant. Post above edited to reflect that. Adam

12-12-2005, 11:32 PM	#59
Damon New Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2	So...why is it that whenever Medievia ranks No. 1 a reason is found to knock them down? I think it's completely unfair to have Aardthingy be allowed and not have Medievia's vote message be allowed...people can turn off the prompt with two words. You could say global vote messages are illegal because they are unavoidable and you can't opt out of them. It's the same thing! Aggravated.

12-13-2005, 12:12 AM	#60
Brody Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: North Carolina Home MUD: OtherSpace Posts: 1,599	Because Medievia's staff seems intent on giving people the ammunition to do so?

Tavern of the Blue Hand

Medievia's Newest Scam