[Kitsune]

It was a few months back.  I spent an hour or so last night trying to find the exact thread.  Granted, I'm not as "fly through the forums to find a lost thread capable" as some folk.  It started when I posted a poll that was running alongside the "P2P are evil" thread that was developing asking folks how they would prefer P2P mud's be listed on the ranking page (not the Features page).  Dulan made a crack/observation about many of the options weren't relevant or somesuch, focusing on 'leave the place to the cockroaches' joke option.   If someone remembers the thread and has better luck finding it, more power to 'em.

I think how it progressed was OE and I going round-robin for a few pages with some occassional shots being tossed in by Dulan and others.  How it concluded I can't say I recall, as the last two weeks of my finals interrupted my following of the debate.  I think I also felt I was arguing with a brick wall and forced myself to stop.

In my mind I think it concluded for me in deciding that everyone has different opinions, some people can't look past their own for the betterment of design purposes, and that I should probably focus my time on my schoolwork.  What probably happened was that I got a few flames after my last post and then it died.  

Personally, I don't play a P2P Mud.  But I'm not a hater and don't see any reason why they should be made to post it on the rankings page if they already identify themselves as such in Features.  It takes an extra few seconds to just check the Features page to find out more about the mud - or their web site.  Now looking beyond my OWN opinion if you are going to make an $ icon on the rankings page for P2P muds, for DESIGN PURPOSES why not have icons depicting several other preferences players might have (RP/PK ratio, code base, genre type).  I know I'd be upset  if I tried a listing that said it was heavy rp oriented in its ranking description only to find out it was a "rp to justify pk" mud.  It would probably upset me more than finding out it was P2P.  But I wouldn't demand them put an icon about it in the rankings page.  if folk are going to panic about one thing, why not cover all the basics?

Anyway, Yui, hope this clears up any 'enlighten'ment issues.  I meant no offense.  I just think there is too much P2P hate going on.   The more hate amongst 'the community', the less I could see valuable discussions occuring in the Forums.  I mean, I wouldn't want to discuss Game Design or Role-Play enhancements with a bunch of folk who hated me.  And there are a few very vocal, closed-minded people out there.

Peas.

[CSmith_Fan]

Agreeing with a previous poster, I have no problems with P2P muds, as long as they are upfront about it.

What do irk me, however, are those "free" muds that "encourage" monetary donations by offering powerful in-game items or other benefits in return.

In a mud that I used to play, some of those donation items were almost a necessity to have any sort of success within the game world.

I would pick a monthly fee over this "the more you pay, the more powerful you are" crap anyday.

Melissa, however, did deserve whatever hostility she received from the other posters, just for ths sheer level of condescension in her post.

[Kitsune]

I wouldn't agree with that at all.  

In previous posts she has been a lot more composed and mature than I'd say a fair share of posters to the forums.

In fact, I think I'd go as far as to say that she more deserves the right to be condescending until folk rise up from the muckslinging, name calling, and flaming.

[PinkFloyd]

Reading this thread and noticing the little flagrant war going on between Orion Elder and Threshold, I decided to bring an unbiased and unobstructed view to the whole mess and see if anything can get sorted out. Is Threshold RPG misrepresenting itself by not advertising as a P2P MUD?
Orion elder said:
Orion Elder, if you had just taken the 5 simple seconds and checked out Threshold's information listing yourself, you would have noticed that Threshold RPG does mention itself as a Pay-per-Play MUD. Lying, Orion Elder, weakens your argument greatly. Furthermore, personal attacks might sharpen your ego, but if you think they make your argument stronger, then you are dead wrong. Calling Threshold stupid was certainly uncalled for. Just shows how bitter you really are.

As for Threshold's reply, there were no lies he stated in his responses. The only problem I had with Threshold RPG was this. I'll quote this from Threshold.

I decided to go through the character creation process to see if this was true. Threshold was true to his word on the first case. Before a person can finish the character creation mode and start the game, one the files that they must read is the help register file. I would post the file here, but I would need permission from Threshold; however, the file in there is very specific that Threshold is pay-per-play and highlights something very important. Namely that if people do not register money to a game they don't enjoy, and if that's the case with Threshold, then they should not. Orion Elder, if you are so concerned about deceitful practices Threshold might be playing, then I certainly think you should log into Threshold and read it for yourself.

The only problem I had with Threshold was in the second example he stated in the quote. The website mentioned about registration does mention the requirement of registration, however when a person goes to the Threshold Home Page, there is no link to the registration page from there. I think it would be helpful if there was a link to the registration page from the Threshold Home Page ().

Orion Elder, please quit your bickering. One lesson I learned when I immigrated here was that "there is no such thing as a free lunch". That applies to the situation with the free MUDs vs. pay-per-play MUDs. Most pay-per-play MUDs mention in their information pages that they are such. Furthermore, your argument that Pay-per-play MUD's should not use the ranking list as a means of advertisement is certainly ridiculous. If the opportunity is there and it does not cost you a dime why not take up on it? Most businesses out there certainly would, be they non-profit or profit. Furthermore, if you are furious that the top MUDs on the ranking list are pay-per-play MUDs, then that should tell you something about them. Namely that most of them out there are better overall than the free MUDs.

Orion Elder, while your ideas are certainly noble and well-meaning, they are just out of touch with reality. I hope you realize that.

End of rant.

An Unbiased Forum Poster.

[Nevynral]

A rather amusing thread. A couple questions, though.

How is it that a P2P mud can 'steal' something from a free mud when the free mud doesn't own it in the first place?

If a free mud is just that, free, then why do they really care about losing the slot to a P2P mud? Or to rephrase, why is it wrong for someone who lives off the fruit of his work to occupy a slot that would otherwise be taken by a hobbyist who doesn't depend on the success of his hobby? It would seem that where 'need' is concerned, a businessman needs customers, a hobbyist merely desires them.

[Azhon]

Thanks to whoever pointed out the info thing. For some reason I never noticed it. Stupid me.

I take back my statement on Threshold then.

[Mason]

I can't help but respond to this post - simply because of its condescending nature.  

I'm not defending the use of the word 'steal' in any context.  However, I think we all understand that the term was used figuratively, not literally.  As such, your 'oh-so-clever' analysis fails to shed any light on this subject - as from your tone I deduce you hoped it would.

This is where I start to get annoyed.  

You assert that if a mud is free they wouldn't care about losing players (or not attracting as many new ones as before).  However, had you really attempted to think about this you might have wondered why someone built their mud and posted it TMS in the first place.  Maybe it was because they wanted to attract players?  If this is the case, and I think it is safe to assume so, why would they not, at the very least, be somewhat concerned by competition - whether from free or p2p muds.

Your "need" analysis makes no sense at all.  If need was the determinative factor then what would be the point of voting?  Why not just have every IMP on each mud write a letter to Synozeer each week explaining why they need the top spot over other Muds?  Instead of the top 20 vote-getters, we could have the top 20 neediest muds.

If it has gotten to the point where p2p muds must justify their activities by claiming a "need" for the top spot, then it must appear their arguments are intellectually bankrupt.  However, I doubt anyone would resort to such an argument, as it would appear unbelievably shallow and transparent.

Finally, it appears Achaea et al were doing quite well before they started listing on TMS - how much of a need, in the strictest sense, could they therefore actually have?  And, if their need is that great, they are always welcome to pay for advertisements (those who do not do so already).

*Please note that my post was not directed at any MUD in particular

[Orion Elder]

[Molly]

Like most sweeping statements, this one was pretty dumb.

I think most of us are smart enough to realise that quantity doesn’t necessarily equal quality. This has been said before, but allow me to repeat it:

What the TopMuds list mirrors is 2 things:
1. How large the playerbase of a certain Mud is
2. How far the Admins in a certain Mud are prepared to go in hustling their players to vote

Personally I made a choice long ago, NOT to hassle my players about it. We left the vote buttons on the WebPage, but totally stopped reminding the players on-line to go and click them.

While this certainly lead to a drop of about 20 positions on the list, it didn’t lead to a corresponding drop in our playerbase. From this I draw the conclusion that the position on the list is of very small interest, unless you are in the Top 20. I also suspect that most players PREFER not being disturbed in their gameplay by constant nudging and reminders to go vote.

Try to have a little fate in your game and your players. Mudders are usually extremely loyal to their home Mud. If your game is any good, they are not likely to wander off, especially not to a place where they need to pay for their mudding. In fact the opposite is much more likely to happen. I tend to agree with Melissa, or whoever it was at the beginning of this thread, who stated that P2P muds probably yield more players to the list than they gain from it.

[Alajha]

Reading over this thread, I actually think I like it better when people flame America. Politics seems... less petty.

[Ytrewtsu]

Here's a novel idea, why not have all the free muds post in their mud description on the ranking list that they are free?

Just couldn't resist,
Ytrewtsu

[Sidmouth]

P2P owners are being victimized to a certain extent because mud owners are, by and large, of the same mindset as are people on say, slashdot.  Because their hobby has been free for quite some time, and because many of the most important people in the world of mudding provided their game/codebases/expertise for free, the mud community tends to dislike the idea that some people are making money off this hobby.  That should surprise no one.

The relevance of this is that when we are talking about the mud community, and the community that these boards are trying to create, there is obviously a natural bias against p2p.  I have that bias, which isn't to say I think p2p muds are evil, I just faintly dislike the introduction of money into one of my favored hobbies.

As many have pointed out, this is not "topfreemudsites".  Perhaps this debate however, would be more constructive if it were over the question of whether or not this *should* be something like topfreemudsites.  If this community is largely composed of free mudders and they find that the top 20 list represents them not at all, then they should speak out, as Orion has.  Of course, topmudsites is not a democracy, and this is all Synozeer's realm, but it doesn't hurt to debate.

I'm not advocating kicking p2p off the list entirely, but I would be strongly in favor of putting a dollar sign next to p2p mud's names in the ranking list.  This is a very small gesture that would be fairly significant to many free mud owners, I think.


America is an imperialist power run by hawkish dimwits bent on world domination.  The current president is largely driven by an oedipal complex that spurs him to try to best his father by revisiting George Senior's policies and attempting to one up them.

I hope that elevates the discussion a little in your eyes.

-Sidmouth

[EDIT] Wording and clarification.

[Nevynral]

Analysis? The point I was attempting to make in reference to the 'stealing' comment was that using inflammatory language to stress your point doesn't do a damned thing to advance ones case.

However, I will admit to having an aversion to attitudes that imply a sense of entitlement to what others have based on nothing more than wishing you had it too, which is what this seems to be about. Some people seem to think that because they wish this site was something other than what it actually is, that those who accept it for what actually is and choose to take advantage of what it has to offer are somehow in the wrong. This simply has no basis in truth.

As to my 'need analysis', it wasn't an analysis at all. I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to counter what seemed to the the opinion that free muds 'need' the advertising space of the rank listings while the P2P ones do not. Quite simply, who are you to determine the needs of anyone but yourself, or to decide that your needs somehow take precedence over those of others?

Of course, I'm using the generic 'you' in this post, not specifically referring to the individual I quoted.

[Mason]

I think we all recognized it as hyperbole.  Yet, you still managed to quote it as if it were coming from a literal point of view.  If you were criticizing it as mere "inflammatory language," why not simply say so?

I, too, occasionally have aversions.   One of mine is towards hypocrites.  You tell us that we are "wishing" we knew what the board was about and that even though we think it is one thing, it isn't so - because you happen to really know what it is about?  Do you see the irony?  How can you contradict yourself so quickly; you did it in the following sentence.  We don't know what the boards are but you do?    

Another aversion I have is towards people who joined TMS recently and decided to tell us what the board "is."  When people complain about p2p muds we are told this is a banner exchange.  When we complain about p2p administrators, we are admonished for letting the community down.  So which is it?  A banner exchange or a community?  Since I have only been a member a few years, I shall wait for the newly arrived p2p adminstrators to take a vote and tell me which one it actually is.  

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone else bringing up "need" anywhere else in this discussion.  The discussion seemed to center around whether p2p muds should or should not immediately disclose whether they are in fact a p2p mud.  As such, your need issue is really just a red herring and serves no other purpose than to obfuscate the real discussion.

[Nevynral]

One I share.

I made no assertions whatsoever about what you wished you knew. As to my knowing what it is, I made no claims about that either. I can make observations about what it is not, however. It is not a pink elephant. It is not a jet plane. And it is not a mud list where P2P muds are unwelcome by the only opinions that matters in the least, the site's administrators who have made their intentions self-evident and indisputable by allowing the P2P muds to list themselves here in spite of the whining of self-righteous ninnies who seem to think they are entitled to dominate the site purely on the basis of running a free mud.

You are forgiven.

[yagiska]

Reading through, I skipped from page 3 to 6 to interject my humble opinion, so forgive me.

Personally, I think it is unethical for anyone who could otherwise afford advertising to participate in a contest meant to generate free advertising for those who cannot afford it.

I also believe it would be a good idea to force every mud listing to specify free or p2p.

However, I do not believe, in my humble opinion, that the purpose of the ranking contest is to generate free advertising for those who cannot afford it. I would assume that the purpose is to generate bragging rights for whoever makes the Top 10. Free advertising in the way of visibility is just a nice side effect.

If this is true, then I fail to see how p2p muds are behaving unethically by participating in the ranking contest. How does the fact that your players pay to play give you an advantage over someone who's players do not pay? I can see no way that money affects this, unless you are paying your players to vote, which is against the rules, no?

The only issue that I might see as unbalancing is the number of players your mud has, although as a popularity contest, this is sorta the idea. But I can understand some people with a small player base may feel they have no chance of competing. Which is why I offer the following suggestion:

What about offering several Top 10s (or maybe Top 5s), each one for a different player size catagory. Top 10 small player base, Top 10 medium player base, Top 10 large player base. Much like how high school football has different classes. And then list the 3 winners (1 from each catagory) most prominently.

Yagi

[Mason]

I never advocated that p2p muds shouldn't be listed.  And I think the majority of the people just want p2p muds to be upfront about the fact that they are p2p.  They also want p2p muds not to offer certain types of in-game rewards to skew the listing in their favor.

At first I thought that you had something to bring to the conversation, even though we disagreed.  However, this statement clearly demonstrates that you are just an @$$h0l3

[Nevynral]

[Sidmouth]

This is a bit tangential, but just so everyone knows, it is in fact *not* allowed by TMS. From the rules: