[Enola_Phoenix]

I loved the analogy of movie and popcorn.

1) The popcorn will not affect the ending, beginning or overall showing of the movie.

buying a token for a weapon on a mud, however will. So therefore that analogy wont work.

2) As for the legal issues. I can see, that you covered your "false advertising" avenue with those simple words "Free to Play". True its free to play, but not to its full extent.

So come on, your mud isn't free to play, its free to try for however long you wish, but to play with all the venues open you must pay.

So how about stating free lifetime trial membership......

[Cyre]

Originally Posted by 1) The popcorn will not affect the ending, beginning or overall showing of the movie. buying a token for a weapon on a mud, however will. So therefore that analogy wont work.

I buy popcorn when I go to the movies because it makes the experience better. I like to be able to sit down and snack while I catch a flick, and I appreciate that option. Some people prefer to wait til after the movie and spend their money elsewhere, but they still get to experience the movie. I just happen to experience it without taking the extra time to eat somewhere else later, and that option is open to anyone to do the same.

Originally Posted by 2) As for the legal issues.  I can see, that you covered your "false advertising" avenue with those simple words "Free to Play". True its free to play, but not to its full extent. So come on, your mud isn't free to play, its free to try for however long you wish, but to play with all the venues open you must pay.

This statement is false. Anything that can be acquired through the purchase of in-world perks can be acquired with sufficiently invested time within the worlds themselves. Anything. Furthermore, there exist a vast array of "venues" that can ONLY be attained and experienced through sufficiently invested time, and purchases alone just won't get you there, no matter how much you pay.

Originally Posted by So how about stating free lifetime trial membership......

That would be lying to the customers. For shame that you would advocate such artifice.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Dulan wrote: I'm finding 'free' excessively easy to define as a TMC auditor. The check for 'free'? Is money accepted for -any- in-game benefit, whether that benefit be playing or training sessions? If no, then it is free. If yes, then it is not.

Personally I'd rather see more categories of "pay-to-play" in the listings.  Or perhaps we could request an additional category called "pay-for-perks"?

Failing that, your definition is probably about as fair as you can get IMO.

Originally Posted by If you walk into a movie theatre and aren't charged to watch a movie, that movie is free, regardless of whether they give you the option of buying popcorn or not.

But if they charge you $10 for the seat and $5 for the 3D glasses (assuming it's a 3D movie) you're not going to be able to enjoy the movie as much if you don't pay.  If I was going to a cinema like that, I would rather that the "Top Cinema Sites" website informed me before I spent all that time travelling there and queuing up to get in.

Of course your analogy also fails to address the point that most people assume they'll have to pay to enter the cinema, while the reverse is typically true of muds (particularly when there's a "pay" option in the listing and it hasn't been checked). It's also a rather poor analogy because watching movies isn't a competitive hobby.

Perhaps a better comparison would be paintball. I enjoy playing paintball from time to time, but what I particularly dislike is when a handful of people turn up who have spent a small fortune on top-of-the-range gear, while I'm stuck with a standard gun that can't even shoot straight and has half their range.

[Cyre]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Aug. 23 2004,11:17) But if they charge you $10 for the seat and $5 for the 3D glasses (assuming it's a 3D movie) you're not going to be able to enjoy the movie as much if you don't pay.  If I was going to a cinema like that, I would rather that the "Top Cinema Sites" website informed me before I spent all that time travelling there and queuing up to get in.

Your extension of the analogy breaks down based on the differences in the medium. It works at the original level because not a whole lot was suggested by it, other than seeing a movie for free makes the movie free, regardless of what else one might buy alongside. Your extension, however, would only be applicable if I could then earn those $5 3D glasses by going to see free movies 5 times a week. The investment of time provides access to the same opportunities as the investment of money. If you want to carry it further and make the analogy even more appropriate, we can imagine that by going those 5 times a week, not only do you get the free 3D glasses, you get a special Spiderman™ keychain that you wouldn't otherwise be able to purchase through the theater. The same is true of things in the realm that are available only through the investment of time, and not money.

Originally Posted by Perhaps a better comparison would be paintball.  I enjoy playing paintball from time to time, but what I particularly dislike is when a handful of people turn up who have spent a small fortune on top-of-the-range gear, while I'm stuck with a standard gun that can't even shoot straight and has half their range.

My response would be that you probably need to play paintball more often if this is the case. Trump their monetary advantage by investing more time into your practice. I play paintball quite often, and unless I am in a tournament, I use my worst gun. Its range and accuracy are far worse than the higher end models I own, but in getting better with that weapon I improve leaps and bounds with the higher end models during tournament play. This situation, of course, assumes that I have both enough time to play often and enough money to get high-end products. But it's just as possible that I could have won those higher end products through tournaments in which I used my low end gear, and in some cases this is absolutely true.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Cyre @ Aug. 23 2004,17:29) Originally Posted by Perhaps a better comparison would be paintball.  I enjoy playing paintball from time to time, but what I particularly dislike is when a handful of people turn up who have spent a small fortune on top-of-the-range gear, while I'm stuck with a standard gun that can't even shoot straight and has half their range. My response would be that you probably need to play paintball more often if this is the case. Trump their monetary advantage by investing more time into your practice.

But I'm not interested in trying to prove that I'm better than them despite being at a huge disadvantage - I want to play a game of skill, knowing that if I win it's because I'm better at it, not because I bought a custom-made chaingun that can fire 10 paintballs per second at a range of up to half a mile.

And the same applies to muds. You don't care about other people buying their way ahead? That's fine - it's a perfectly viable business model. But myself and many other people do care, because don't want to pay to have to compete fairly. So the question is, why are you so opposed to us having the chance to see that information in the mud listing?

[Cyre]

Where does it end, then? This information is readily available with a cursory examination of the websites. There's a ton of information I wish I could see in a mud listing, but it would be impractical to request that things be changed to accomodate. There's no real reason why certain games should have to list whether they allow both time and money to be used as tools of advancement, other than to assuage those few who seem to bring this topic up on the forum whenever the opportunity presents itself, as opposed to other games having to list whether their gameplay is optimized for use with zMUD over Telnet. It's as much of a disadvantage to someone who is a telnet user to play the bulk of games for whom zMUD and other MUDding clients allow a wealth of scripting opportunities as it is to you and others who don't want to invest time to make up for what you can't spend in cash. There are a million situations out there like this and a million potential topics of outrage for the boards to address, but its ultimately not worth the time. There are a wide range of outlets to express your opinions on different games and the way that they portray themselves, but asking for one thing to be given special treatment over another is just opening Pandora's Box to a flood of useless banter on what should or should not be said in MUD promotions.

[Enola_Phoenix]

The information is readily available on the website. Hrmm I visited the website, and read all about the pay perks, I saw salads, and dragons steaks and all neat stuff for all those nifty points. But I didn't see what could be bought or used with them.

And even though the popcorn enhanced your experience of watching the movie it didn't affec the movie. the popcorn to the movie is zmd to mudding.

And the venues to gaining the buyable items through gameplay....well maybe so, but thats a really big disadvantage, lets see I play 5 hours a week and have the highest eq money can buy, while Joe Smoe played 130 hours a week for the same eq. That's not really fair, it should state pay-for-perk next to free to play, let people know they can buy or play their way to the top.

[Dulan]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Aug. 23 2004,05:01) Originally Posted by Dulan,Aug. 23 2004,04[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]6] Originally Posted by Looking carefully at my posts, I did not mention you nor any MUD you run. Furthermore, you then promptly attacked me rather viciously, and accused me of being in consort with this 'Kimberly'. In a single post, that's what...3, 4 seperate logical fallacies? More? Jeebus, dude. I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole. I vaguely recall someone (Traithe perhaps?) pointing out, in some detail, that you have no idea what 'logical fallacy' means. It seems that's still the case. Of course, if we're going to be childish and stand behind Mommy and giggle that, "No, I wasn't giving you the finger! I was giving the tree behind you the finger!" then I'd ask you to point out where I insulted you in my post. If we're to be ridiculous, I'd ask you why you're so paranoid as to feel that "those with a less-than-solid grip" refers to you? I would, but I'm not going to, as it's a stupid question, just like your "oh-im-so-innocent" stance is a silly, transparent stance. Originally Posted by Enola: Depends. I'm not familiar with Threshold's stance on money, but yes. Free can -easily- be misconstrued, which is why I suggested that particular definition of 'free'. Misconstrued assumes that you're right in your interpretation of the word 'free.' If you walk into a movie theatre and aren't charged to watch a movie, that movie is free, regardless of whether they give you the option of buying popcorn or not. Anyway, we're a commercial enterprise. If you're so certain we're committing fraud in advertising, there are no doubt a plethora of legal/official avenues available to you. Why not avail yourself of them? I encourage you to spend your time tilting at the windmills you've created in your mind. --matt

Logical Fallacies

Originally Posted by I vaguely recall someone (Traithe perhaps?) pointing out, in some detail, that you have no idea what 'logical fallacy' means. It seems that's still the case.

Wrong. This is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Not only is it attacking the person, but it is appeal to authority that is invalid in this context. Furthermore, it is a blatant lie, as all Traithe did was point out the logical fallacies that I was using. I began using them as you refused to stop with the logical fallacies, and you were losing badly in the argument. Traithe stepped in and pointed out my fallacies, but did not bother to point out your own. (Which there were pages of, if memory serves.)

Now, let's point out in detail just what parts of that post were logical fallacies.

Originally Posted by I'm quite sure -all- regular readers of this forum are well aware of who you were speaking of. You weren't very subtle about it.

Appeal to Pity.
Prejudicial Language.
Popularity.
Attacking the person.

There's more, too. However, the_logos, I have never seen you bother to actually enter a discussion. All of your arguments consist nearly entirely of logical fallacies when you argue, and quite often all that saves you is a horde of rabid fans. Tell me, the_logos, can you honestly enter a discussion, only by yourself, against one other person, and not resort to your hordes or logical fallacies?

Honestly? I know I've tried to discuss something with you civilly in a thread before, but you refused completely. And I also can't believe how many logical fallacies you succeeded in including in, what, TWO SENTENCES?

Finally, this isn't a threatre the_logos. That is actually a logical fallacy in and of itself - specifically, a fallacy of definition in that it is too broad. A theatre is irrelevant in this case. There is no equal circumstances which can be equated currently - after all, buying popcorn is not equivalent to buying, say, a better seat. You could argue that this is equivalent to offering free seats in a theatre, but the only seats worth having are the ones that are paid for. That is closer to an analogy that could be drawn. Furthermore, I believe there is a fallacy of analogy (False analogy, perhaps?), but I have forgotten that particular one. Popcorn is closest to the client, not the pay for benefits.

Now, back to the discussion. And please stop trying to derail the discussion at hand, the_logos. It's a fairly benign discussion about just what -is- free, if you'd bother to read the posts. Why do you feel so threatened about a discussion about what is/is not free?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Cyre @ Aug. 23 2004,19:04) Where does it end, then?

The purpose of the listings is to provide information that people are interested in when looking for a mud to play. As this topic keeps coming up again and again, I think it's fairly safe to assume that people are interested in it. Indeed, I believe it would help cut down a lot of the flame wars about the exact definition of "pay-to-play" should such an entry be added.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by So come on, your mud isn't free to play, its free to try for however long you wish, but to play with all the venues open you must pay.

Why not actually get your facts straight first? This is blatantly incorrect. There is -no- avenue of the game that is not available free of monetary charge.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Personally I'd rather see more categories of "pay-to-play" in the listings. Or perhaps we could request an additional category called "pay-for-perks"?

That'd be cool with me as long as there are two categories. One would cover "pay for perks that you can ONLY get with real money" and the other would be "pay for perks that you can obtain for free anyway."

Originally Posted by But if they charge you $10 for the seat and $5 for the 3D glasses (assuming it's a 3D movie) you're not going to be able to enjoy the movie as much if you don't pay.

But now you're not talking about free vs. not free. Not you're bringing other factors into it, like enjoyment.

Originally Posted by Of course your analogy also fails to address the point that most people assume they'll have to pay to enter the cinema, while the reverse is typically true of muds (particularly when there's a "pay" option in the listing and it hasn't been checked). It's also a rather poor analogy because watching movies isn't a competitive hobby.

And playing muds isn't a competitive hobby either unless you choose to make it so. Your playstyle is yours.

Originally Posted by Perhaps a better comparison would be paintball. I enjoy playing paintball from time to time, but what I particularly dislike is when a handful of people turn up who have spent a small fortune on top-of-the-range gear, while I'm stuck with a standard gun that can't even shoot straight and has half their range.

Ok, you personally don't like it. What's that got to do with anything? If the paintball arena let you play as long as you wanted for free but charged for higher level guns, it's still a free paintball game.

--matt

[Jazuela]

They -are- free to play. There is nothing in their games that you must pay for in order to get. Nothing is available ONLY if you pay for it. Payment for "perks" is optional, because those "perks" are already available for free.

The only thing I might even consider suggesting is to say exactly that in the listing:

Free to Play; Payment Optional.

[aardfrith]

I think the analogy of paintball is invalid in this discussion of what's free and what's not. Yes, you can buy pay for perks, such as custom-made weapons, better equipment and such but isn't there a monetary outlay to play anyway? Last time I looked, you couldn't just turn up somewhere and play for free.

With Aetolia, Aardwolf, Achaea, MadROM, Mirkwood, etc. you can turn up and play for free. You can just log in on basic telnet (or a freebie mud client) and play with now capital investment.

From what I know of MadROM and Mirkwood, the IMPs do not accept donations because there is no cost to them for hosting the muds. They cadge server space off academic institutions.

Aardwolf is too big and has too much traffic to live with a free host. Hence it accepts donations so as many people as possible can participate. Aetolia and Achaea are commerical enterprises and must sell stuff within the games to be profitable.

However, this is not to say that Aardwolf, Aetolia and Achaea have no place in this listing. The ranking on TMS is for the most popular mud sites and all three are obviously very popular. And free, more so than paintball or visiting the movies.

I think that maybe a compromise would be to add another option to the Advanced Search on TMC for Pay for Perks That You Can Get In Time Through Normal Gameplay (or accepts donations, or whatever you want to call it). Maybe another one for Commercial Enterprise.

Btw, I quite liked Enola_Phoenix's definition:

Originally Posted by Receiving donations does not make you a pay to play mud, It's non-profit, I can almost guarantee you a mud which only acccepts donations does not live on those assets alone. Those donations normally go to better the mud

[the_logos]

You know, if there are people who want to ban all valid interpretations of the word 'free' but their own, let's universally apply that shall we?

So, no claiming you're 'hiring' people anymore unless you're actually hiring them, not just recruiting volunteers.

No claiming that you offer "professional" anything unless you are a professional developer/administrator. (Of course, saying you offer professional-quality <whatever> would be fine.)

I'm not seriously suggesting these, incidentally, though they make more sense than the argument over why 'free' should mean only what a certain, small, segment of site users feel it should mean, despite clearly valid alternative interpretations.
--matt

[Dulan]

Yo, the_logos.

On a serious question, why are you so defensive/aggressive against a rhetorical question about what is and is not 'free'? This was mainly bull****tin' between a couple people, and it turned into a major flamewar suddenly.

[Valg]

Edit:: Bleh. Double post. Please remove this one.