[the_logos]

One of our users has come up with a way to do one-click voting for TMS if you're using Zmud. I'd imagine that's nothing new as there are a lot of clever Zmud scripters out there, but I thought I'd post it here for everyone else to give to their users if they wish, or for other users to use it as they see fit. Obviously, replace the initial url with whatever url you send people to in order to vote.

#url http://www.achaea.com/irex/tmsvote/vote.php
#var Voting 0
#until (@Voting=1) {#var Voting %DDE( iexplore, WWW_GetWindowInfo, 1)
#if (%left(@Voting,30)="http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi") {Voting=1}}
#DDE iexplore WWW_OpenURL {javascript:document.click.submit()}
#unvar Voting
#dde iexplore www_exit


I don't actually use Zmud so haven't tested this myself, but I'm assured it works. What's interesting about this is that combined with a trigger to gag text is that Zmud-using players can create, on their own, the ability to turn off automated voting reminders after having voted.

In other words, whether Adam interprets his rule as allowing voting reminders that the mud turns off after you vote, or requires us to spam all users with vote reminders, a good portion of players are able to turn off the vote reminder after they vote regardless of what the mud itself does.

(Waits for the inevitable, "So let's ban all in-game vote reminders!" followed quickly by a slew of posts saying, "Good luck enforcing that with any kind of consistency at all.")

--matt

[Tavish]

Originally Posted by What's interesting about this is that combined with a trigger to gag text is that Zmud-using players can create, on their own, the ability to turn off automated voting reminders after having voted.

I would be rather shocked if many players didn't simply gag the reminders even if they haven't voted.  Unless the automated reminders are dynamic in content the scripts to do so would be extremely simple.  I would guess that the main roadblock stopping people from adding a gag ( out of those with the inclination to do so) is simple ignorance of the client's capability.

[John]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 17 2004,13:12) In other words, whether Adam interprets his rule as allowing voting reminders that the mud turns off after you vote, or requires us to spam all users with vote reminders, a good portion of players are able to turn off the vote reminder after they vote regardless of what the mud itself does.

What would also be interesting is if a script was made to make it so it will automatically remind players every 12 hours to vote. This would allow players who play muds that don't send messages in-game about voting, to have this functionality added if they so wish. Having the script multiple times would allow them to be reminded to vote in multiple listings.

[Jarrad]

Greetings,

Now Matt has posted the zmud script lets hope all the rest of you quit your petty rubbish, its quite simple people, spend more time helping your players and get a player base big enough to strip Achaea from top place. All this rubbish is just silly, it is so western world tall poppy syndrome. Matt doesnt get good votes because he advertises in game, he gets good votes because his players enjoy the game, the good immortal staff and the atmosphere.

I have taken this even one step further and set it on a zmud #alarm so it auto-votes if I havent in the last 12 hours. Simply add an alarm that fires at a time you know you will be online.

*snuggles and hugs to Zmud*
Signed

Goryan Ath'loren

[Wik]

Testy posts always go over better when it's by someone who only has one post. And how does this alleviate anything, exactly? It's certainly a benevolent gesture to the voting community, but how does it connect to the current controversy going on? If the rules need to be clarified, then they need to be clarified.

[imported_Synozeer]

In-game reminders are fine so as long as they don't stop when the player votes or something else happens that's due to voting (such as reaching the top 10). These reminders must be independant from anything to do with voting. You can set it to remind players once a minute if you'd like - it's the reward aspect that is against the rules.

As far as this script goes, does it take the player to the Top Mud Sites website by opening a browser window? If it opens a page up, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it just votes and closes the window, or doesn't open a visible window, then it would not be allowed. Those voting must be able to see the main page of the site, otherwise there's no benefit for the site and the muds on the list.

The reason why I don't have an issue about autoclicking the "Yes, I wish to vote for this site" is because the only people who are using this script are those who want to vote. In this instance, it's fine. However, you cannot do this with a vote button on your website, because there was no conscious effort to agree to vote for the site except for clicking the button, which people will do even if they don't want to vote (curiousity, wanting to see other muds, etc).

Adam

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by As far as this script goes, does it take the player to the Top Mud Sites website by opening a browser window? If it opens a page up, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it just votes and closes the window, or doesn't open a visible window, then it would not be allowed. Those voting must be able to see the main page of the site, otherwise there's no benefit for the site and the muds on the list.

Yep, that's exactly what the script does. It opens, votes, and closes. It's completely undetectable and completely outside the control of anyone but the end user.

And, as a user described in that other thread, you don't even need reminders from the mud to do it. I've so far heard reports of it being used in all of our muds, Armaggedon, Aardwolf, and Feudal Realms. What's the point of banning something that literally cannot be enforced?

--matt

[imported_Synozeer]

If it's entirely an end-user thing and independant of the mud, there's no problem with it, since a user can choose to vote how they would like to, as long as they don't try to get around the once every 12 hours rule. I thought that the script was used in conjuction with the mud itself.

The only way to prevent this sort of thing would be to fix it on my end, and I'm not sure if that's even possible.

Adam

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Synozeer @ June 18 2004,17:13) If it's entirely an end-user thing and independant of the mud, there's no problem with it, since a user can choose to vote how they would like to, as long as they don't try to get around the once every 12 hours rule. I thought that the script was used in conjuction with the mud itself. The only way to prevent this sort of thing would be to fix it on my end, and I'm not sure if that's even possible. Adam

Yeah, it's all resident in Zmud. I don't think it's even possible to prevent it, as you said, due to the fact that it's just pulling up a web page, clicking for the user, and closing the web page.

--matt

[Angie]

But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

[John]

Oh I didn't know it automatically did it for muds that don't get the messages. I also don't like the fact it doesn't send traffic to TMS. Getting rid of that last line though appears that it would fix that.

What language does the script use? Any particular language or a special scripting one just for it?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (John @ June 18 2004,20:52) Oh I didn't know it automatically did it for muds that don't get the messages. I also don't like the fact it doesn't send traffic to TMS. Getting rid of that last line though appears that it would fix that. What language does the script use? Any particular language or a special scripting one just for it?

It's in Zmud's scripting language.

--matt

[Terloch]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ June 18 2004) I've so far heard reports of it being used in all of our muds, Armaggedon, Aardwolf, and Feudal Realms.

Nothing of this sort is being used at Feudal, as we don't have any sort of tracking script or proxy page running that would even generate anything for a user, please don't go lumping us into things.

[imported_Synozeer]

I just want to clarify something I said earlier:

Originally Posted by In-game reminders are fine so as long as they don't stop when the player votes or something else happens that's due to voting (such as reaching the top 10). These reminders must be independant from anything to do with voting. You can set it to remind players once a minute if you'd like - it's the reward aspect that is against the rules.

This means that you CANNOT display different messages based on whether someone has voted or not. If you're showing a "Please Vote" to someone who didn't vote, and not showing it to someone who did vote, I consider that against the rules. It has to be an all or nothing thing if this rule is going to work, which means NOTHING can be influenced by whether someone voted or not. If you're on the ranking list and currently doing this, you'll need to stop.

Adam

[the_logos]

Erm, yes it is, as one of our players apparently plays your game and does it on your game. Keep in mind that you don't need a tracking script, or anything at all from the mud in order to use this script or a variation thereof. It's entirely resident in Zmud. I wasn't accusing any muds of anything. =) Heck, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it anyway.
--matt

[John]

Aaah. For the confused (e.g. me) what it does is it creates a button that when pressed, votes. It doesn't have anything to do with reminders or anything.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (John @ June 19 2004,00:17) Aaah. For the confused (e.g. me) what it does is it creates a button that when pressed, votes. It doesn't have anything to do with reminders or anything.

Right. The same idea embodied in the button could be created to vote on receipt of a particular message from the website though. I'd imagine that since we have to spam users with vote messages whether they've voted or not now, a good portion of them will be using Zmud to gag the vote messages if they've already voted.

--matt

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ June 18 2004,20:39) But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

This is indeed a problem since it means a mud is receiving votes and ranking (and therefore benefiting from TMS) without actually sending traffic to TMS (which benefits TMS, its member muds, and advertisers).

Perhaps a possible code fix could be done via the referrer tag and only allow a vote for a certain mud if the source of the packet was the domain name of the mud.

For example, any vote for UberMUD would only count if the referrer came from *.ubermud.com (assuming that is their domain).

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by (Synozeer @ June 18 2004,23:29) It has to be an all or nothing thing if this rule is going to work, which means NOTHING can be influenced by whether someone voted or not. If you're on the ranking list and currently doing this, you'll need to stop. Adam

Hey,

I'd like to publicly state that I'm extremely disappointed you've arrived at such an unreasonable and illogical conclusion.

There's absolutely no coherent reason mandating that a rule of prohibition be absolute in order to be effective. The best laws are those which recognize that there are exceptions in every situation, and make room for them as best as is possible - in this case, that exception would be one allowing a reasonable, unintrusive, and entirely useful voting reminder once per gaming session. As we have discussed before, no reasonable person could honestly call freedom from a two-line reminder once per gaming session a "reward".

If what you said about a rule being useless and unenforceable unless completely absolute were true, there would be, for example, no self-defense exception to murder laws, nor would judges have any discretion in handing down sentences at post-conviction hearings.

The fact is, as the creator of the site and the final arbiter of the rules here, you have the power to define them as you wish - exceptions included. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever in the enforceability of the rule if you chose to include reasonable exceptions to allow practices such as ours to continue.

Needless to say, I don't really see the sense in this decision. As the owner of the site, of course, you're free to decide as you wish - and for as long as we use your service we will abide by your rules.

As a longtime supporter and user of your site, though, I just wanted to voice my disappointment over the matter. I really do hope you'll at least consider the possibility of making such an exception to the recent rule clarification.


T.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ June 18 2004,20:39) But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

So much for all those 'eyeballs' all that traffic was supposedly sending to TMS.