[KaVir]

This is what you said previously:

"I think it's easy to see why many people want the four option system. Most of them do fall into one category, but that category also has a TON of wiggle room and is impossible to enforce. Until you can get rid of the word "rewarded", we'll just keep having the "free" discussion every few months, and people will keep flaming each other over it every few months."

Emphasis mine. You explicitly objected to a specific word, so it was changed in an attempt to appease you. Please have the decency of not shifting the goal posts every time your concerns are addressed - this thread is already long enough.

Do they get something in-game? Yes.

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[X] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game.
[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

TEXT BOX: Donators get a purely cosmetic badge. No other in-game results.

None that I can think of, and none that have been mentioned here. Oh, there are games where the owners wouldn't be happy about their classification...but none that you can't easily categorise at a glance.

Are you required to pay? Yes. Therefore:

[X] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[X] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game.
[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

TEXT BOX: One-off $50 registration fee. Can also purchase perks.

Whether the second box is also clicked would depend on whether Lasher decided to use check boxes or radio buttons.

From the perspective of a player, the fact still remains that they are required to pay. The specifics of that payment could vary dramatically - what if I had a mud that cost $5/year to play? Someone could play that for 10 years for the cost of the old Threshold registration fee, which would likely end up being cheaper for most players. What about the Skotos games that allow you to play a whole range of different games with a single monthly subscription? What about Guild Wars, which has no subscription costs but still requires you to make the initial purchase (the equivilent of a registration fee) and also allows you to purchase expansion packs?

If you start breaking the options down into specific types of payment, they become ambigious - just the same as if you were to try and break the "results in-game" down into specific types of perk.

Fortunately there are only 31 pay-to-play muds on TMS, and people willing to pay are likely to read over each entry first (which means they could view the text boxes). Furthermore, Threshold doesn't even have the registration fee any more, so it wouldn't be classified as payment-required anyway.

It's not about players being "stupid", it's about making the search options easier for them to use. The two players who have posted so far in this thread have both expressed a preference for the four-choice system.

To put it another way:

Threshold has said that people are told about his payment model when they first log on, therefore it's not a secret. That means players who don't like his payment model will simply log off shortly after connecting - all you've achieved is to waste a few minutes of that player's time.

However I've been told by some commercial mud owners that certain players actively prefer pay-for-perks, because they have money but very little time. However there's currently no way for such players to find that type of mud.

Based on the above, I can't see how the four-option system wouldn't be an advantage for your mud. The players who remove "results in-game" from their search options are the same players who would quit anyway, whilst those who want a pay-for-perks system are now more likely to find your game.

The muds that lose out are the ones that hide their payment models (or at least the extent of the required payments) until the player is hooked.


I've already told you, at least twice, that there are currently 31 muds listed on Top Mud Sites that already use the "pay-to-play" option, which was incorporated into the four-choice system as box A.

There is no room for interpretation - that's the beauty of the four-choice system.

Did you actually ask them, or are you just guessing?

Once again this has been explained to you repeatedly: There are a number of people who would favour more options, but it's very difficult to do so unambigiously. Your proposal, whether made in good faith or not, has more holes than a Swiss cheese. The four-choice proposal, while still rather over-generalised, is extremely unambigious - nobody has yet come up with a payment model that can't be clearly categorised at a single glance.

[Xerihae]

Received requests to keep this thread open so open it stays. Just play nice please!

[Newworlds]

Woo Hoo! GAME ON!

Alright what I really think is that we should go to a four opt...oh wait, someone already said that...hmm, Okay, well, if we had a two option...#!@#$!, someone said that too! Well, how about a change in wording! Oh nevermind, already been discussed.

~sigh~

[chaosprime]

I think we should make a selection option for "free" and "unfree" that's based on whether the MUD is 100% open source. Never mind this "free as in beer" nonsense.

[Threshold]

I guess I should not be surprised that this argument is still going, but somehow I am. I see we are still arguing about the countless different meanings of vague phrases like "rewarded in game" or "results in game." Both phrases are equally vague and in the long run, worthless, ambiguous flame fodder. Occasionally someone hilariously suggests the terms are NOT vague, despite the hundreds of posts preceding theirs with examples going in every direction possible.

But I honestly thought the whole idea was invalidated for good when Valg admitted his purely personal motive that has little to do with "educating players":

That admission right there pretty much killed the whole idea. I said all along I thought there was a personal motive behind this, and that some admins were hoping to change the system to benefit their mud at the expense of others. I was roundly criticized for making such a "ridiculous" claim. Turns out it wasn't so ridiculous after all. Valg got a little carried away and spilled the beans. Or maybe he just got tired of dancing around the issue and pretending.

So aside from the fact that every proposed set of options beyond takes money/doesn't take money is hopelessly vague, isn't it time the whole ugly argument finally died?

I mean, now that we know the whole movement was about gaining personal advantage over other muds and not about informing players, isn't it just done?

[Molly]

I think you are just about the only one still 'discussing' this.
Most us others are just waiting for the system to be implemented.

And please stop applying 'personal motives' to other posters.
If you want to talk about personal motives, stick to your own, since they are the only ones you know anything about.

[Valg]

A claim can be both sensible and something personally valuable to me. Actually, if you follow my claims, the system is useful to me precisely because it is useful to a searcher, and therefore a good utility for the site. The current system makes no distinction among the vast majority of TMS's games.

If you plan to continue posting in this thread, I suggest you address the merits of the idea, rather than repeatedly and directly attacking my character.

You keep insisting on calling the four-box system "hopelessly vague", but you have failed to respond to the request of providing an example of an actual MUD that is difficult to characterize. KaVir and others have categorized various games, and I've yet to see a disagreement between any two posters about what boxes a specific MUD should check. The empirical evidence suggests that your claims are false-- the system is both necessary and sufficient to more finely distinguish among TMS's MUDs.

[Newworlds]

2, 4, 6, 8, The two box system is the best to date! GoooooooOOOOOO Two BOX! (with options).
--Brought to you by, two box for a better world. Restrictions apply. Availability may be limited. Not sold with any other offer.

[chaosprime]

Well, it enjoys the universal support of people who keep repeating the same arguments as if they haven't been refuted and persistently use tactics that would get you thrown out of any high school debate club, like claiming that everyone has the choice of either supporting your position or being a <censored by GodwinsLawBot v0.9a; your thread longevity is our business!>.

So I guess that's, uh, a metric of some kind of "goodness" in some kind of universe.

I probably need to reread the thread, because at this point I can't actually recall any of the anti-four-box-plus-text sentiment translating as anything but "<stompystomp> if you try to make it so I can't say my pay-for-foo-bar-and-baz game is exactly as free as anyone else's, I'll ruin your pay/free distinction some other way, so THERE! <stompystomp>"

[Zhiroc]

By the same rationale then, I figure you are therefore advocating for the removal of (or at least some distillation down to concrete terms, if possible of):

Originality: How "original" is original? What is "mostly"?

RP: What is "RP"? (Some people think that RP needs deep-seated personality development, others think that just not bringing up Harry Potter is good enough ) What is "Encouraged"? What is "Mandatory"? (In other words, what is the enforcement mechanism?)

Avg players online: I've seen games with 60 during the day, 2 at night. Is this 30? Is this players or characters? (Multiplaying can affect this, my MUSH allows for 2 alts and 1 feature, plus temporary NPCs, others allow more, or less). Plus staff can play characters, features, and NPCs.

In an earlier reply, you stated that once money changes hands, the entire relationship changes. Do you feel this way in general, or just in gaming? After all, I get solicitations for donations all the time for local firefighters and police, and schools often send out there kids to collect money through magazine and other sales. Hmm, is my church "rewarded or not rewarded in life?" Maybe you do have a point there

[Newworlds]

While most if not all of your points are well taken, this is a rail split that is pulling off topic. I say we stay on topic. The current argument is 2 boxes with sub options or 4 boxes. I'm not sure this will ever be resolved to any satisfaction, which has reduced Chaosprime and me to fun humorous posts.

[shadowfyr]

But!!! Churches provide a sevice. They read a book you can buy yourself and repeat the interpretations of what it says, which you already interpretted that it says yourself, over and over again, kind of like a giant mirror. Oh wait... What they hell do they *actually* do? lol

But seriously, there are a lot of cases where people recieve money where the expectation is ***not*** a direct and immediate result to the person handing over the money. Some things do have some general tangible benefit. Donating money to help cancer research, if you have cancer, may have a more direct result "to you" than someone that donates, but never gets it. I think this is just another attempt to reframe donations to an otherwise moneyless game as something its not. I don't think I am the only one getting a bit tired of it. Framing something so it **looks** worse than it is just makes the person doing it look like a fool, to anyone recognizing that they are trying to do the equivalent of putting a 24k gold frame, with glass, over a crayon drawing. Just because you have framed the argument to try to make it sound reasonable doesn't mean it suddenly becomes reasonable.

That said, I still think the 4 box system, with some allowed clarification, is better. It gives more precise information. When you start reducing that to 2, you are just helping the people that want to reframe the whole thing in the best light for them, but the worst for actually figuring out what you are looking for.

[Newworlds]

Even when the 2 box system has 8 or more sub-options for better searchability? I would think these extra options would be more beneficial for the search engine? Or do you feel it makes it more convoluted?

[chaosprime]

Sardonicism aside, your 2 + subs (+ text?) is pretty good -- another order of thing entirely from the straight 2 + text, about which I have nothing good or kind to say. I wouldn't cry if some version of what you're describing were implemented. I just like 4 + text a smidge better; 4 options seems exactly the right balance of partitioning and simplicity for this case, and I'm uncomfortable with having the top-level options feed the whole "any money involvement is exactly the same as any other" subtext.

[Zhiroc]

I agree that there's probably not much more to say that doesn't retread old arguments.

So, I would suggest that either Lasher mull it over and come to a decision, or if there's a feeling that more "democracy" would help, post a poll for preferences (so that numbers can get counted, and so members don't have to stick their neck out too far to voice an opinion )

[tricky]

This thread has been an interesting ride (one that I thought would have spawned more threads than it has) and I am still interested to see where it will end.

Which brings up another thought... does anyone actually have an idea where all this is ? You are all just arguing back and forth, round and round. Makes you think, have you achieved your goal? I think the only person that can answer that one is Lasher.

I just wanted to post an "intermission" of sorts, just to get people to think what this thread is now all about.

Tricky

[Newworlds]

History Lesson: Originally Nodeka posted about having 100% Free game, and some folks took issue with the term 100 % Free. Some arguments ensued and from there people wanted to define 100% Free in a true context and what free really means. Halfway through this Lasher proposed a four part definition of boxes that would better define things for players when they searched the forums. A two part definition with options became the counter to this four part definition. Through numerous arguments, some redundant, some flaming, and some constructive we have ended at a stale mate: 4 options vs. 2 options and no one willing to bend either way.

What is this thread about? In a nutshell (forgive the pun): Free usage of the term Free when you have paying customers.

[KaVir]

This isn't a "game" with wins, losses and stalemates. This is a discussion, initiated by Lasher, and any outcome is entirely his decision.

The Thresholds want the listings to remain unchanged, so that they can continue to list their game as free. You want a 2-option listing, although you've yet to address the numerous problems with your proposal. Everyone else involved in this thread is in favour of (or at least willing to accept) the 4-option listing - for many of us it's not ideal, but it seems to be generally accepted as the best compromise and a clear step in the right direction.

As with creating a mud, any feature you add will receive a mixed reaction from the users. As an admin there are many reasons for rejecting an idea, including "I don't like it" - but dismissing ideas simply because they lack unanimous acceptance from the users will kill further development and result in stagnation.

[Newworlds]

It is a stalemate because the discussion is virtually dead Kavir. What exactly in the last 2 pages of posts adds anything new to the discussion? What does your recent post add, besides claiming what people want or don't want?

What I pointed out was poignant and true:
What is this thread about? Free usage of the term Free when you have paying customers.

I think a good determination of what this thread is about could be easily identified in which box you would check if the four box option was put in place. Would anyone care to answer? Here are your choices:

a. [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
b. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewards in game.
c. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no rewards in game.
d. [ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

I will start it off. I would check D.

[Lasher]

I'm still leaning towards the 4 options with a text area for elaboration. There's very strong opinions and personalities on either side of the fence on this one but mostly involved with MUD administration or MUD sites in some way.

Putting myself in the place of a player looking for a new MUD, a piece of important information those 4 options don't cover is whether or not all content can be experienced without payment. "All" in this context would mean anything that has any impact on gameplay. A picture on the webpage, a bigger avatar on the forums would not be considered content. A better item, a bigger map, a new skill, etc, would be.

I'm still struggling with whether or not to make that option #5. It can be gamed but if it is completed honestly it is valuable information. Any MUD owner could lie about any of the search options, I think we just have to assume details will be entered correctly and build the site around that.

To answer the earlier question, there will almost certainly be a change. The 2 option is too broad. Right now it's between 4 and 5 with #5 (above) out there waving its arms to see if it has any support. Over to you....