[Threshold]

What makes this an issue of NEED? The name of this web site is Top Mud Sites. Read those words carefully. It is not "Most Needy Mud Sites."



First, I guess I've already won this argument since you have to resort to blatant, ad hominem insults.

If I'm so dumb, how come I'm so successful? Seriously, calling someone "dumb" as the meat of your argument is really a terrible tactic of debate.

Second, You demonstrate again your lack of understanding of the gaming industry.

They charge an up front cost for the software in order to recoup development costs. MMORPGs these days have development costs upwards of $10 million. Furthermore, they charge up front to prevent people from getting $10 throwaway accounts to cause trouble.

Honestly, you need to obtain a BASIC understanding of the industry before you try to make suggestions for how they should do business. Furthermore, considering how incredibly successful of a market the MMORPG market is, it would appear they know what they are doing.



For all of them? You work for free? Many businesses give away services on occasion for certain reasons (ours included). That is not the same as being expected to work for free.



Widely free? The number of people playing *PAY* online RPGs is TEN to ONE HUNDRED times larger than those playing free games.

The field is widely PAY. The number of people playing the free games is actually quite small by comparison.

Please note it was *YOU* who made a comparative statement by saying the area of online RPGs was "widely free." Since you raised the point, I had to counter it.

So people who expect a widely PAY "entertainment field" to switch to being free is the same thing as expecting people to work for free to entertain you.



Who asked anyone to bow down to your "P2P God"?

You are the one saying Top Mud Sites should be some kind of communist environment where P2P muds pay the costs of operating the sites and then "free muds" get all traffic sent to their games. That is absurd.

Again, if you took the time to educate yourself you would see that muds ALL OVER THE LISTS get a lot of people trying out their games from this list. Both myself and my wife have tried games off this list from all over the rankings in search of a game for *US* to play. It is obvious that everyone on the list benefits. Proposing that P2P games shouldn't be allowed to benefit when they are the ones who PAY MONEY to keep the site running is absurd.

It is just another example of you expecting Person A to pay for something that benefits Person B.

[Azhon]

Uh. The simutronics games are obvious pay to play simply by their tag lines. Threshold isn't. Is it too hard to say "free trial" on your tag line? Others have done it, and they're doing very well.

[Orion Elder]

Melissa, this is the answer to your problem about it being a community. He's out to benefit only himself, and by and large many of the other P2P MUD operators behave similarly. Can't have a community when so many of them are vultures, like Threshold, willing to pick off the weakest of the pack in an effort to get a step ahead.

Actually, I was making an observance. If I were attempting to insult you, I'd likely be banned from the boards as soon as Synozeer caught sight of my posts. I generally keep my temper in check, though. Sorry to disappoint you.

Let's see... underhanded business practice, willingness to step on those below you to gain any advantage you can... yeah. You have the perfect corporate appearance. You behave like slime, and are proud to do so. Your intelligence has little to do with it.

Good for them... what, though, does them charging the monthly fee in advance have to do with anything? I know I didn't mention it. Furthemore, I understand that there are costs quite well. But, in all honesty I really don't care. I am the general public, remember? To me, and many people I know, paying for a software then paying for the right to use that software online is a waste of money. If they provide a self-hosting capability within the game, so that you don't have to pay to play online, then I would understand. They very well may do that. I don't know. I've never played the game, and I don't plan on playing it.

I need no such thing. I can go out and make any suggestions I like. You may not like them, but you're one of the soulless minions that is corporate evil. #### DARKSEID TO ####! Sorry, inside joke.

Just to clarify to you... success is not always intentional. It can often come as a nice side effect or out of sheer dumb luck (anti-biotics, anyone?). So, your belief that only intelligence and good planning can result in success... well, it's simply not true. Occasionally some people really are just in the right place... or they're slimeballs willing to kick their grandmother down the stairs. Your underhanded attempts to hide from people that your game is free until they actually go to the trouble of logging in fits into the latter category in my opinion.

If you really want to know, a few of my clients are MUD related. I have done the work for them for free, continuously. So, we've established that i have worked for some people entirely for free (and I still do).

However, I find your habit of twisting statements to be somewhat annoying. Nowhere did I say anyone should be expected to work for free. I said if they play off the cost as 'just a piddly' amount they should be expected to work for free. The costs for what I do are not piddly, and I make it clear up front that it can be expensive. I don't know many businesses who tell their clients in advance "this can be hard on your pockets." So, if you were trying to test my moral fortitude about what I was saying... well, you didn't do a very good job of it.

First of all, I will point out that the number of free MUDs as far as I know greatly outnumbers the number of pay MUDs. Now, I will address your statement. You already have an extremely large amount of people playing P2P games, based on your statement. So, why is it that you need to take a listing from a free MUD, again? Oh yeah, I forgot. You're successful because you're willing to do what it takes. Good job. Can't wait to see which option you choose when someone gives you the option to murder a puppy in cold blood for a hundred thousand dollars. I get the feeling poor little Rover will have a short lifespan, though I could be wrong.

[

Yet you still feel the need to take those few players 'we' have available. Now, as I have previously stated... I do not particularly like P2P MUDs advertising using the ranking listing, but I can tolerate it. What I dislike is the P2P MUDs who hide or are not clear about they fact that they do take payments. If you find it so necessary to not make it clear on your listing here that you take payments, one must wonder why exactly that is. The most obvious conclusion is that you know without a doubt that you will lose incoming traffic. So you willingly choose to be deceitful about it.

It is widely free. We're talking options of places to play. Not players. There IS a difference here. Though, I guess I shouldn't expect someone who is self-proclaimedly successful to care about the distinction between a human and a game..

You just called everyone who does not want to play a P2P MUD, even those of use who run MUDs, the equivalent of a software pirate.

The personal PC could be considered a 'widely pay' field. So, I guess in your eyes the free-software movement is evil. Do you support Palladium, the TCPA, and the Fritz Chip, too? Are you a backer of the RIAA? Nevermind, don't answer that. I think I already know the answer.

It's not my God. You and your belief that anyone who does not like the P2P is a software pirate accounts for that statement.

No. You pay for advertising, you get advertising. You make note you're a P2P MUD, that you take payments in your ranking listing and the info page for your MUD, you're listed if you don't list it in your ranking list and the info listing, you get banned outright permanently (after a warning, maybe). That's what I would propose. If it's absurd to expect people to be upfront and honest about costs, then I suppose I'm just being absurd.

I'm sorry. Where exactly did I say that if you pay for advertising that you shouldn't get it? Please, point that out to me. I said you shouldn't take up space on the ranking listing, and that is only if you do not list in your info and ranking entry that you're a P2P MUD.

You really are this out of it, aren't you? At first I thought it was an act to bait me... but if it's an act, and you've been setting traps, you really have managed to fool me. But, I get the feeling it's not.

I'm done with this. You've made inane arguments, insulted the MUD community almost as a whole, attacked beliefs you assumed I had with no backing what-so-ever, and you still expect yourself to be taken seriously. That simply proves to me that you're far beyond the bounds of reality that most of us have to live in on a daily basis. Enjoy your dream world where everyone is rich and tosses money at you like it's on fire. The rest of us will be living in the real world... feel free to join us sometime.

Edit: I got so tired of responding to Threshold's drivel that I forgot about the bulk of his last statements.

[Yui Unifex]

The only difference of qualification between P2P muds and free muds that I see here is that free muds are 1) losing advertising space due to P2P occupation and, 2) P2P muds are getting more money for free.

If there are is one remaining stall at a marketplace and I wish to sell my goods at this stall, and another person wants to give his goods away at this same stall, why does the fact that the person who wants to sell his goods change the morality of his occupying that stall? Likewise, why does the fact that a mud is P2P change the morality of their occupying a space?

If it's really because "they're getting more money", we'd have to write this argument off as ridiculous. Because there are countless situations in which people would be considered immoral in your eyes: If any business wanted to STAY moral with these qualifications, they would have to give up any limited resource as soon as someone who wants to give their services away for free competed for those resources. Needless to say, the effects of your justification would be disastrous.

[Orion Elder]

[Terloch]

Ok, going to throw my two coppers into this mess, and yeah, I'm sure someone on one side or the other (or both) will flame me.

I run a free mud, have for years, and even without the code licensing restrictions, I would't charge people to play regardless.  I don't run a mud to make money, it's sort of against my whole creative process (and my staff's).

For those who do run P2P muds, honestly, more power to you.  If you can make a living making games, and have a product people will pay for, once again, more power to you.

What I do have issue with is seeing the rapid decline of the "state of affairs" of TMS as a whole, which may or may not be attributed or affected by the entrance of large P2P muds on the lists.  When certain games came on the boards, we were literally OVER-RUN with people posting drivel, putting down any system that wasn't their precious one they've played forever, and generally ignoring that any sort of community was here in the first place, TMS was seen only as a way to get more exposure for their system.  Legal, sure.  Cheesy and annoying, sure.

What I also take issue with honestly, is the fact that people assume that simply because a game is paid for that it is better, or that an admin is full-time and that is their "job" that they are better, or whatever.  Deem me a "hobbyist" if you wish, but on average, I put in 30-40 hours, or more a week on various things for my game.  Not 5, not 10, 30-40.  Being that I am at my "real job" right now, and typing on here, I'd say that I put in more "real time" into my "hobby" than my "real job" at times (don't tell my boss).

As for the whole advertising thing, I can't honestly chime in about that, because we DO pay for advertising here, and have been the sponsor of TMS for quite some time now, and we shell out $100 a month to do so, with a portion coming from player and staff donations, but the majority of it coming from my pocket.  Do we get more players since we put in the ads, sure we do.  Have we gotten a few players from P2P muds, sure we have.  Have we lost more players to P2P muds than we've gained, who knows, I doubt it.

Enough of my rambling ranting, I'm just tired of being looked at as a second-class citizen from a third-world country simply because I'm a "hobbyist" and *gasp* run a mud in my spare time, with a *gasp* completely volunteer staff, and *gasp* give our service completely away for free...


Terl

[Yui Unifex]

Perhaps you can highlight the important parts, then? What I see is an agenda propped up by some poorly thought-out arguments. I simply want to find the logical extrapolation of your claims. I do this so that everybody can easily see where the logic you use takes you.

I don't think I have to quote the post where I pointed out this fallacy. Remember, even free mud administrators can pay for advertising. Furthermore, you're using flawed circular logic to back up your points: You state that P2P muds are occupying an advertisement slot; I ask why it matters that they're P2P muds occupying an advertisement slot, as opposed to a free mud; and you reply that this is because they're occupying an advertisement slot that a free mud could use! You're going to have to do better than that if you're going to convince anybody. In particular, we need to know what attributes of P2P muds make it immoral.

Can the person who wants to give his goods away go a block down the street, pay a moderate fee, and give them away? This is the second time I've had to point out this fallacy.

I love this quote =).

All those points that I've shown were irrelevant and that you didn't refute? =)

So what if the free MUD administrator is a wealthy executive? This is the third time this fallacy has reared its ugly head.

[Yui Unifex]

Playing off the cost as 'just a piddly' amount is done from the customer's perspective, not producer's perspective. If I sell a unit of good X for $0.10 a piece, and I sell 10,000 units of X, I receive $1,000. For the individual customer buying a unit of good X, the cost is "just a piddly amount". But for the producer whose income depends on the sale of mass quantities of these goods, this is most certainly not negligable, and it is silly for them to not be concerned with its pricing. Even changes in a fraction of a cent per individual customer can mean thousands of dollars of change for the producer.

Or would you rather the maker of such mundane inexpensive items as toothbrushes simply forgo their income?

[Orion Elder]

*sigh* So far, no one but you and Threshold seems to be having a problem with understanding it. I will explain it once more since you have such a hard time grasping the concept. Pay MUD steal advertising space from Free MUD. Pay MUD can afford to rent advertising space instead. Pay MUD does not make clear that it is Pay MUD. Free MUD loses one of few free avertising spots to Pay MUD that can afford to pay for advertising instead.

Let's recap once more. P2P kicks the free MUD off of one of the few free advertising venues available (this seems to be where you get lost... there are not very many places that people can get prominent advertising for their MUD for free ... this is a boon to free MUD admin... it's a perk to a P2P admin, but as has been previously admitted by Threshold, they do not NEED the space here), P2P can afford to pay for advertising elsewhere, or even on this site.

If that still doesn't make sense to you... well, I don't really give a ####, but there is nothing more I can say to get the point across to you.

This was covered not only in my statements but in the stealing bread from the hungry analogy. If it's not yet clear to you, then it likely never will be and we're pointlessly dragging this thread out.

I also made it clear, I will not attempt to take into account personal finances. That has no relevance to the MUDs as entities. Free MUDs do not have a guaranteed source of income... they might get a donation here and there, but in general it will be nothing near the type of income a P2P MUD would have.

So, if you're fixated on this personal income issue, you might as well give up now... it has no relevance here, and continually bringing it up serves no real purpose.

If it's too hard for you to understand the clear and outright statement that I will NOT take into account personal finances, you have my sympathies.

This will be the third time I've had to point out I will not take into account personal finances, thus your point here is null and void.

And not only have you ignored rather clear statements I've made, used bad logic (the point wasn't circular no matter how much you may wish for it to be), but now you're twisting what I say. Bravo. You've stooped to the level of troll.

This is your opinion, and you are entitlte do it.

This is the fourth time I've had to state I will not take into account personal finances.

I felt a few of the things you stated needed to be addressed, however by and large I'm done with this thread. I may read it with amusement, however I doubt I will be posting to it any further.

[Molly]

[Soki]

[Yui Unifex]

But you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty refuting it. Maybe it's because you say the same thing over and over again, and ignore what I've said?

You don't seem to understand that personal finances are tightly coupled with your argument: You are saying that P2P muds shouldn't occupy a spot in the list because they can afford to buy an advertisement. I am saying that this point is impractical to apply because some free mud administrators can also afford buy an advertisement. You said yourself that you don't want to take into account personal finances, which demonstrates the impracticality of your logic. This is a central premise of your argument on the immorality of the issue, and without it your conclusion completely falls apart.

Furthermore, your argument makes complete sense to me, and I understand it fully. But remember way back there on the second page, where I requested that you give an attribute of P2P muds that decided the immorality of the issue? Your only attempt at giving one -- that they can afford an advertisement -- is what I have shown to be completely impractical to apply, and you've puzzingly decided to ignore it?

I don't see how you can honestly say that it has no relevance here, given the evidence I've laid out for you.

One point does not a circle make, Orion. Circular logic occurs when one point is used to 'prove' another point, and then that point is then used to 'prove' the point that was used to prove it. Repeating the same thing in response to all of my questions is most certainly circular; it shows that you take your argument as a given.

Have a little maturity, will you? We're all adults here.

[OnyxFlame]

[Threshold]

((( This was originally an actual point-by-point response. A few minutes later, I decided to go back and erase everything because continuing to argue each point seems to just fan the flames. I imagine that is of neither benefit nor interest to the general readership here. I left my statements that are 2 posts below because I felt it was important to point out OE's 100% false accusations regarding Threshold's TMS listing. Since I cannot delete this post, editing it out is the best I can do.)))

[Soki]

[Threshold]

First, the statements that I and Threshold are such horrible, evil things:

... and I probably missed a few.


And then, the most important FOUR quotes:

I wanted to quote these seperately as they are GLARING examples of how Orion Elder blathers on without making even the tiniest effort to EDUCATE himself about the topic.

FOUR times over the last few days Orion Elder accused me of not listing Threshold as a pay mud. He could *EASILY* have looked up our link. It isn't hard, we're right there on the front page.

Here is the link to Threshold's listing on TMS:



Please note that in the FEATURES section, it clearly says: Pay-per-play

Our listing has ALWAYS said that.

Seriously OE, before you spew insults at people you should at least spend a few seconds researching your accusations.

[Dulan]

Eh. I've been enjoying this Unifex vs. OE argument, Threshold, but if you want to jump in, I get to jump in too. And, unlike with the previous subject, you won't be able to use the constant emotional appeals as well as irrelevant points to your audience, because this subject has none.

-D

[Kitsune]

*rubs his temples*

Wasn't this beat to death once before?

- The annoyance previously known as TG_Nek

[Yui Unifex]

Believe it or not, to some of us this is new material. Perhaps you could enlighten us about the conclusions of the beating, or give an informative link?

[Alajha]