[Threshold]

That isn't the issue. If I was arguing this solely because of the effect I thought it would have on Threshold, then I'd be guilty of the same thing. The reality is this change would have ZERO effect on Threshold. That is why I feel quite confident and justified in continuing the argument.

I think this change will be BAD for TMS.
That is why I keep arguing against this. The change won't hurt me, or Threshold, or Frogdice whatsoever. But it will most certainly hurt TMS in the long run, as well as this shred of a community we still have as MUDders.

[Valg]

The alternate theory remains that Lasher is an adult who can think and make decisions for himself, including the system he proposed on this thread. Comparing people who disagree with you to small children nagging Lasher is... not an adult thing to do, however.

Physician, heal thyself.

[shadowfyr]

To quote Jonnathan Archer (I know, people hated Enterprise), "A compromise is that which all sides dislike equally." lol Seriously though, I am really fuzzy on the logic in implying that limiting options to two, which arbitrarilly drop some muds in the wrong category by default, is beneficial in the goal of providing *clarity*. Mind you, some of the proposals may go too far and any search system would need to imho, *not* use a mere text box to search for terms. Its one reason I dislike the idea of "plus an added box, where they can clarify". Sounds good, but it lends itself precisely to the abuse people are complaining about. Not having one though leads to silly arguments about how, "Well, my mud it 15% less pay to play that his, so why do I get stuck in the 'pay to play' category?" Umm.. Because being 15% less of something doesn't change the basic fact that you *are* that thing. The only real acception I think applies is things like the sale of T-Shirt, Key Chains, etc., since that is a means to encourage donations, not a bribe for content (if it is the later, then, as I stated, someone is going to talk about it, and that *will* result in the same sort of response as any other abuse to the system).

[Spoke]

I had not replied to the thread because it took me over a week to read it all, now that I know where most positions are, here are my two cents:

As a player I find that even though the 4 options seem to provide with more information than before, it seems like it misses to provide with the information I would actually find useful.

To explain my point, I began playing MUDs in college, which meant I had little money and a lot of spare time. Under those conditions, I would look for something that was "free to play" (see the_logos' version of the term somewhere in the previous 14 pages). As long as I could compete and get access to the competitive stuff by just dumping in my time, I did not care. Then, I graduated and went to grad school, all of a sudden I had marginally better funds and much less time, so now the same category fit my needs, since I would still be able to play in breaks yet maybe help my progress with a bit of money (actually what really happened is that out of loyalty to the game I had played for years I decided to donate, but the effect/motivation was similar :P).

In this scenario, I would have not cared if the game was No Money Accepted or Donations with/out effect in game during my college years, more important than that was that I would be able to translate time invested <--> money invested, and that the game was balanced in that sense (no 67 years to get the Sword of 1337n3z someone else gets for $15). In the second case I would not want No Money Accepted but I would want a game where I could donate but that donating wouldn't be a major/required thing (ie. time <--> money).

As you can see by now, the problem is that the actual relevant data is something too hard to quantify (if even possible), I can see the value on more information and maybe some people really would benefit from more information, but as much as the 4 option system may help those who are for/against specific pay/benefit methods, it leaves out (in my opinion) a chunk of people who are really looking for something related but not identified at all within the given options.

Now, for the discussion in general, it may be useful to try to filter posts thinking on what really would benefit players (this goes for both sides of the argument), while any MUD that receives money for any reason might be considered a commercial entity for an accountant or equivalent, as long as >>I<< do not have to shell in money to play it will be free to me, but I will of course notice there is a difference between one that allows me to support the place by buying RL key-rings of eternal 1337neZ with a nifty logo and one that allows me to use $30 dollars to get me a couple more magical weapons for my character.

Lastly, if the 4-5 option thing goes in without any major modification, make sure you can select multiple categories when searching, so that in my case I could check all those that are No Money/Donation with/out benefit in the same run (practically useless I now realize.)

[Newworlds]

I'm curious if you found the 2 box system with multiple options for search results more or less beneficial? Keep in mind the options I lay out here are not set in stone, but just examples of what "could" be used.

---------------------------------------------------

[ ] This mud has some donation, registration, and/or payment features.

(Sub options, click as many as apply)

{ } Paying registration is required to play.

{ } Paying registration is required at certain levels.

{ } Donations are required at certain levels.

{ } Donations are encouraged but not required.

{ } Rewards are part of donations/registrations/payments.

{ } Rewards are not part of donations/registrations/payments.

{ } All rewards in this game can be received without paying registration.

{ } All rewards in this game can be received without donations.

(There could be several more option boxes but I think you get the picture)

[ ] This mud does not accept money (donations/registrations/credits) in any form.
---------------------------------------------------

[Spoke]

The two option system has no benefit over the 4 option one really. If anything it would be as useless for me to use as it does not address the only thing I care about (and I would assume is the same most of those who choose to knowingly play Pay-for-Perks MUDs), that is, "Can I get everything a paying customer can by putting in more time?" (tangent arguments of it taking 67 years aside please).

The other problem I have with too many options is that even in the best case scenario, when all administrators are truthful and honest when classifying their MUDs a visiting player-to-be would be forced to use a bunch of the options in order to get what they really want (Pay optional in game benefits, pay optional no game benefits, pay not required but encouraged, pay not required but encouraged on MUDs birthday, ......) So, in this case, the existing free to play, pay required to play, is as good as any of the suggested methods (for MY type of query, let that be clear.)

I am aware also, that getting a group of people to agree on what does free or balance mean, or the actual time <--> money conversion rate for an specific system is, is much harder than to go with the 4-5 options suggested by Lasher. In any case, when you are an absolutist (as a player looking ONLY for a specific type of game) the 4-5 system seems to do the trick quite nicely; too many options => Force you to select a bunch of subcategories lest you end up with 2 returns for your query, too few options (2) => at best reduces the look-up time in 50% average.

Any way, I do believe that you all (administrators in general) are discussing this to death because you are thinking ahead on how will you (or site owner) be able police the new changes without getting a headache, so you want all crystal clear, no muddy lines etc. Sadly, by doing this the value for the average player (not one who is hard-core this or that, but one who accepts a bit of this and that) is reduced.

I hope this clarifies my view.

[Newworlds]

I agree. We should leave the system as it is since I don't think we will ever agree on what Free/Partially Free/100% Free, Pay/Partial Pay/100% Pay, means. Nor will we we ever decide what rewards incorporates.

[tricky]

What does "Free" mean? NO MONEY!

How simple can it get?

Tricky

[KaVir]

It was established by Lasher on page 2 of this thread (in post 37 - this post is post 409) that the users of TMS are not going to agree on the definition of "free". Since then, most of us have instead moved on to trying to catagorise muds in such a way as to avoid that word entirely.

[chaosprime]

Lost Souls is 100% free because, even after you've signed up, the player is still permitted to play, not just other MUDs, but other types of computer game entirely. Surely everyone can agree that this is, indeed, a tremendous amount of freedom.

[Jazuela]

NewWorlds you're trying to come up with ways to appease all different types of mud admins with their variety of payment types (or lack thereof). That's a big problem. Because the focus of -this- issue isn't on how mud admins can/should categorize their muds. It's about how PLAYERS can LOOK for muds. The moment you try to please mud admins, is the moment you forget this whole point is to create a search engine for players, who are looking for any of the following:

1) I want a game where real-world currency has no part of the game, whether via donation or required payment or payment optional.

2) I want a game where donations are allowed, but there is no benefit in-game if I make one.

3) I want a game where I can pay for things with real world currency if I want, but I don't have to, to enjoy everything that people who do pay, can enjoy, with a *reasonable* amount of time invested.

4) I am looking for a payment-required game.

5) I am looking for a game where certain things can be purchased with real-world money that will benefit me in-game, and that are not available to people who don't pay.

And yes I like the idea of this being a multiple option for players too; so we don't have to decide which -one- we want, if we're open to more than one.

The 4-option one most folks here seem to agree over, would probably be fine so long as the player can pick any combination rather than being limited to picking one. All games of all types will fall into one or another category, with most of them falling into one (money optional, no in-game benefit), since the bulk of games listed here are Diku-based or have other codebases with similarly limited licenses.

I have no personal stake in any decision made, because I am not a game admin. But as a player, those options would work for me just fine. I just want to know if people who pay money will get ANY kind of perk IN GAME, because that would be a game I will want to avoid. I'm not particular about whether or not they accept donations or refuse them, as long as I don't learn that someone can buy something from the official game website that will appear in the game, whether it's stats, or levels, or a token for a free alteration of his character's clothing, or an asterisk in front of his character's name/main description, or the ultimate deathsword of d00m and d3$trukshun.

[Threshold]

Yeah. We wouldn't want to please MUD Admins. That would be terrible. Why are they even spending time posting their opinions when they should be cranking out new content for players, right?

The term "players" refers to an extremely diverse group of people with a zillion different sets of priorities and opinions. You cannot "please" them by creating a set of dumbed down, vague checkboxes that poorly and inaccurately categorize MUDs.

Players will ultimately do their own research to find a game they like. That's what they have been doing for decades and it worked just fine.

TMS provides a platform for MUDs to promote themselves to players. It also provides a place where players can find information on tons of online games. Yes, the information is mostly provided in the form the MUD admins feel is most appropriate and positive for their game. So what. That is called marketing. The is GOOD for our hobby for admins to be able to present their games to potential players in the most positive light.

It is an exercise in futility to try and predict all the different ways players will interpret payment related information and narrow it down to a couple of check boxes. It is also patently unfair to force MUD admins into categories they feel do not accurately describe their mud.

But most importantly, it is absolutely repugnant that the real force behind this whole effort is a couple of MUD admins who are doing this for purely personal reasons. At least one of them has outright admitted it. There couldn't be a more WRONG reason to make a change than that.

[Newworlds]

Um, did you even read about my two box, multi option system? Everything you asked for could have been found by searching for the muds that had checked the boxes you favor. From your post, I can only see that you are in favor of the 2 box with options system.

As for pleasing Admins of muds. Yes, I am. That is what this argument is about: the admins being able to properly represent their games FOR the playerbase.

Advertising Plug: "New Worlds, where we bust our asses for next to nothing, so that you can have fun!" (TM)

[prof1515]

The opinions of MUD admins have been expressed and the majority I've seen have been in support of the four-box system. So yes, why aren't MUD admins out there improving their games instead of arguing about how they will or won't help players find that content?

The term "players" refer to those who play the games. While you can't please everyone, you can at least be honest with them. The four-box system is neither "dumbed down", "vague" or "poorly and inaccurately" categorizing MUDs. I'd like you to give a specific example if they are.

And an accurate search system is a means to do that research.

"Marketing" is no excuse for dishonesty.

No, it's good for "our hobby" for admins to present their games in the most honest manner and with respect for the players who play any game, be it their's or another's. Lying, be it "marketing" or not, is detrimental to "our hobby" because it gives new players an inaccurate view of the whole whether it be a commercial MUD calling themselves "free" or a stock MUD claiming to have an "original world".

MUD admins who find no way to represent themselves in the four-option system are simply trying to avoid being honest.

No, it's not the most important.

Everyone holds their opinion for personal reasons. These personal reasons range from making the site as useful as possible for players to promoting honesty in advertising to maintaining a system which allows some MUDs to dishonestly represent themselves. They're all "personal reasons" but I suspect the first two would be looked upon more favorably by players. Those two reasons are the "real force behind this whole effort".

Leaving a vast majority who still support the same position even if "at least one" had some disreputable motivation.

Take care,

Jason

[KaVir]

Lasher has already confirmed that if he goes for the 4 (or 5) options, players will be able to select any combination for searches using check boxes.

Thus if you want to find games that accept money in any form at all (the equivilent of the 2-choice suggestion) you could search like this:

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

Alternatively, if you want to find a game where money has no in-game effect (but don't care about unrewarded donations or mugs and t-shirts that can be purchased from the website), you could search like this:

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

I guess if you don't click any boxes at all, it'll be the same as if you'd clicked them all, except that it would also show muds that hadn't yet specified their payment model.

[Molly]

I for one am getting rather tired of this.
Since you persist in repeating the same arguments over and over again at any given opportunity, and since you persist in these rather insulting allegations, I think it is time that you came forward with your own personal motives for resisting what seems to be a very reasonably addition to the search engine.

I could of course make the same kind of guesses about it that you do, but since in effect nobody but the persons themselves know anything about their own motives, I am asking you straight out instead.

You keep accusing people of having presumably shady motives for wanting this addition.
So, what are your own for not wanting it?

[Valg]

As has been pointed out, you're the only MUD admin making a case for the status quo of a two-box system. New Worlds has advocated a de facto nine-box system, and others are supporting Lasher's system. If pleasing MUD admins is a priority, you should set the example and go with the choice that does that.

That said, since this is a utility for players, not administrators (beyond market research), the salient issue is what system helps players find the games that suit them. That's what a search engine is for.

Again, please provide an example of a MUD on TMS that is "poorly categorized" by Lasher's system. It's been your bogeyman for pages, but you have not named a single example.

Feel free to address the issues rather than continuing to attack individuals. No one has been speculating upon your motives, and if they did, I think we both know that the moderator alert system would light up, again. Apply the same standards to yourself that you expect from others.

[Jazuela]

NewWorlds, as a player, I wouldn't use a drop-down 2-to-9-box system. As a player, I just want a list of games that I've asked for, based on the filters I've provided. If I have to play a game, just to find a game to play, then I'll find an easier search site to do my searching. The more intricate the search tools, the less I am likely to use them. On the other hand, the more wide-ranged the search tools, the less useful they are. That is exactly why the four-box system seems perfect. It's neither too wide-ranged for the average player to find the payment type they might accept, nor too intricate to spend time figuring out.

Don't forget, payment type isn't the only search criteria. I still have a whole lot more buttons to try and decide on, like - I'm looking for a CUSTOM code donations optional, not just any donations optional. I'm looking specifically for a Flinststones genre, and I'm looking specifically for a mud written in -either- Swahili or Urdu.

If I have to click box 1, then look over four MORE boxes, just to come up with "No money exchanged for anything in the game. What goes on outside the confines of the game is not an issue to me" then I'll start using Google to search muds. Too much stuff to do. Especially if the "custom code" people start insisting that the search options for code type be changed to reflect the new availability of fancy new drop-downs and multiple clickies (technical term). And then the people who allow color, start arguing with the people who require their OWN color, not just the client color, about how "millions of colors" is deceptive, and THEY want a new drop-down too. And we can go on and on for years and end up with a completely ridiculous search engine that never really finds anything that anyone is actually looking for because it's just too damned convoluted to bother with.

No thanks. What we had, wasn't broken. But Lasher agrees to do, is a vast improvement and will work great for -most- players. And since the point of this website is to attract legitimate traffic, and there are many many more players than there are mud admins, I'd say doing what's best for the players is probably going to be better for this website than doing what's best for this or that mud admin.

[Threshold]

A majority of what? 10 people? Don't you need a bigger sample size before you start claiming broad based support for an idea? There are a handful of people who want this change. There are a handful of people who don't. Please do not act like this issue is the result of players begging for it. This issue is here because a couple of MUD admins want it to be an issue. That's it. Don't even begin to act like this is some kind of grass roots movement.

That has already been done numerous times. I'll give you a few MORE examples - on top of the tons of examples that have already been given.
Furthermore, there will be no end to the arguing about what constitutes an "in-game reward." For that matter, there will be argument about what constitutes accepting payment. In any reasonable mind, selling merchandise is most certainly accepting payment, for example. But some people actually try to argue that selling merchandise is not accepting payment.

The purely selfish reasons that motivate some admins to push for this change is a very serious and disgusting problem. It should not be ignored - despite your attempts to have it ignored.

Without naming names, at least one admin has outright admitted that their motive for supporting this is selfish and is based on feeling it "cheapens" their use of the word free if other games can use the same word. You can't just rule that out by saying it is a "personal attack." That kind of motive throws into serious question the value of making this change. If Lasher makes changes to TMS for such twisted and biased reasons, he will set a terrible precedent that will negatively impact the site for a long time to come.

[KaVir]

The vast majority of the people posting in this thread want the four-choice change, including all of the (non-admin) players who have posted. Some people want even more options, but you (and your fellow staff member) are the only people opposed to any change.

No examples have yet been given of a mud which doesn't clearly fall into the four categories.

If each server is separate from the others so that you cannot move between them, then each is a different game and should be listed as such - in the same way that half a dozen people running clones of the same mud wouldn't be expected to share a single TMS listing.

If you can move between the servers then, while you could still play for free, purchases made on a commercial server would still impact your gameplay. The listing would therefore be:

[ ] 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: Multiple interconnected servers, some free, others with payment required or pay-for-perks.

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

TEXT BOX: You can purchase mugs, t-shirts and mouse mats from the website.

The mud is still earning money for in-game benfits, regardless of whether they hire someone to handle the sales directly, or licence those sales to a third party. The mud has a vested financial interest in players making purchases, and this is going to be reflected in the gameplay.

[ ] 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: Can purchase gold and items through a licenced third party.

They accept payment for in-game advertising so, just like the muds that give you a cosmetic title for making donations, you'd fall into the second catagory:

[ ] 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: Sells in-game advertising.

The same is true for the purely selfish reasons that motivate some admin to push against listing changes. That's why I think it's particularly important to look at this as objectively as possible, and listen to the few players who post here.

If I were motived by personal gain, I would have pushed for your two-option distraction, as it would be far more beneficial for my mud than the four-option proposal.

I think you're forgetting that the four-choice proposal was made by Lasher. But to put your complaint in perspective, about 300 posts after Lasher made his proposal another individual stated:

"The way that you presently market your game cheapens the way we use 'free' in our advertising. We both know there is a difference, but you're arguing for a system that suppresses that difference, and that is my business."

There's no getting around the fact that you are arguing for a system that allows you to suppress the difference between payment models. As a pay-for-perks mud, it's equally clear that you have a strong motive for suppressing that difference.

So in summary, I actually agree with your text I quoted above, although not in the context it was posted. I think it would be a great shame for Lasher to discard his own proposal, particularly after it's gained the favour of so many posters, simply because of the selfish motives of a single mud.