[Ytrewtsu]

Originally Posted by Can I offer rewards for voting?      You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes. You CAN offer a game-wide prize (e.g. for ALL players on your mud) for reaching a goal, such as getting your mud the top 20, finishing in the top 10, etc.

So what is to stop a mud from giving a mud wide reward of (just for example) a full restore if the mud gets one more vote, nothing. The mud could also give out 1000 experience to everyone on the game. This rule does not prevent muds from giving rewards for voting, it only makes sure that if they do it, they give it to everyone on the mud.   In my opinion, this rule will not do what many people thought it was intended to do (prevent games from rewarding people for voting). What it will do is allow muds to reward their playerbase as a whole instead of singularly (like when they hit the vote button).

Just to be clear, my game does not offer rewards of any nature for voting here (although we do have some players who try to encourage it verbally from time to time).

Ytrewtsu
.02 cents of nothing

[Nevynral]

Originally Posted by This is a bit tangential, but just so everyone knows, it is in fact *not* allowed by TMS.

Interesting, and it certainly puts the practices of certain mud operators in a different perspective if they actually agreed to abide by these policies and then went on renege on the agreement they willingly entered into.

However, whether or not voting incentives are officially allowed, they are obviously tacitly allowed as evidenced by the fact that at least one mud openly defies that rule and hasn't been kicked off the listings.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by You CANNOT offer incentives or rewards to players for voting. That means you cannot give players items, experience, or anything else in return for votes. You CAN offer a game-wide prize (e.g. for ALL players on your mud) for reaching a goal, such as getting your mud the top 20, finishing in the top 10, etc.

I've stayed out of this up to now, but this particular quote here just couldn't be let go with one comment. I happen to agree with Ytrewtsu in that this sort of thing does not really stop the practice at all. You simply shift it to a global reward for getting people to vote. The end result is the same. Your players will perceive a reward for voting and thus feel compelled to do so. It's been my experience that the offering of ANY kind of incentive for action results in that action being performed. In the case of employment, the incentive is a paycheck. It's really no different here. The incentive is that the entire mud gets X reward for voting, so they flock here and do just that. If there are indeed muds who are violating the letter of these rules, they should be kicked off. As zealously as the Diku license is defended, I see no reason why TMS rules shouldn't get equal zealousness.

As for the whole debate about P2P, I personally don't like the idea of paying for a mud. Especially if they also charge for the software I need to collect AND assess a monthly subscription. If that makes me a software pirate, as was hinted at pages ago, so be it. I fail to see how that could be so though. I'd be all for P2P muds simply being open about it. Would solve everything. Stick a $ in the ranking list.

[Soki]

Originally Posted by (Mason @ Jan. 23 2003,15:49) Originally Posted by 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.

Please dont' forget that the boards and the "membership" were reset within the past year. Many administrators who appear "new" have actually been a part of TMS for over three years. I, for one, had over 200 posts when we went to the new boards, but I haven't had as much time to be active as I used to now that there's a new baby in my life.

I've always looked at TMS as more than a banner exchange, but I also acknowledge the fact that muds ARE exchanging users because of this site. There's no one thing that TMS is, and it's different things for different people. I don't reallly feel that it's necessary to try to make people feel completely unwelcomed simply because they don't run their mud the same way as others.

[imported_Synozeer]

Just a quick note - I'm still working on the rewards rules. I might not allow rewards, period. I've been getting some useful help from Matt @ Achaea.

-Synozeer

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Orion Elder,Jan. 23 2003,07[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]9]

Originally Posted by I actually read what I figured to be the most obvious spot to post that a MUD is P2P. The description. I glanced everywhere else, didn't notice any P2P information ... The information was in the features clump, but not at the top or bottom, where it would stick out. ... Now, I made a mistake. Given, the information could have been posted in an easier to notice location...

You will have to complain to Synozeer about that. I entered Threshold's information in exactly the method that the web site's form asks for it. I do not choose what order the web site scripts organize it in. You mentioned you do not have a mud listed here, perhaps that is why you are not familiar with how the forms work here for submitting mud information.

The mud admins do NOT control how the information is sorted.

Originally Posted by but I still made a mistake. And for that I apologize.

Apology accepted. I assume this apology is an apology for everything, including the personal attacks, insults, and various accusations of "evil" on my part?

If so, thank you.  

[Alajha]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorta, but the rest of your post was so pathetically petty and unimportant it actually downplayed this snippet.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Jan. 23 2003,08:20) 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

Molly summed it up correctly in my view. Having the most players doesn't make you the best mud.

I think only the most naive sort of mud newbie thinks # of people online = quality of game.

[Mason]

Originally Posted by Please dont' forget that the boards and the "membership" were reset within the past year. Many administrators who appear "new" have actually been a part of TMS for over three years. I, for one, had over 200 posts when we went to the new boards, but I haven't had as much time to be active as I used to now that there's a new baby in my life.

I understand that there are p2p administrators who have been her many years.  That is why I said "newly arrived" adminstrators.

[Tavish]

Threshold:

Originally Posted by I think only the most naive sort of mud newbie thinks # of people online = quality of game.

The general attitude of free mud admins seems to be that the more players a mud has the less the quality of a game.  While at first I thought this was appaling, the more I thought on it, the more I think it's a cultural trend, or perhaps even human nature.

The music industry provides a good analogy.  The underground music scene is a very tight-knit community with dedicated followers.  Whenever a band from within that scene signs a high profile record deal and their music begins to hit the mainstream, they are often stuck with the label of "selling-out".  Somehow when money becomes involved the underground community believe the band loses their artistic soul and care more about the money than the music.

Why so bitter?   With it's grassroots in an underground enviornment, the mudding industry/hobby shares many of the same problems as the music industry.  P2P games are viewed by the free games as those who decided to "sell out", making money off of what could be done for free.  Often they take the groundwork that has been laid out by free games, put it in a prettier package and market it to the masses, forming their own communities and leaving the rest of the games to fend for themselves.

This isn't to say that they do not make inovations in the games they produce, but within the "underground" mud community those advances are usually discussed and shared, while on the p2p games they are marketed.

It doesn't mean that one game is better than another, one way is more noble than another, no more than a band is less artistic after signing a contract (some exceptions of course ).  It is just something that changes the viewpoints of those involved.

One man's opinion, I even made it through without using the naughty J word.

[Orion Elder]

As for the location, you could include the information in your description and your ranking listing. You may have no control over the way the features are listed, but you do have control over the order the description is posted and your ranking listing.

As for the apology, apply it where you like... I don't really care. I'm not going to take a chance on climbing back into the middle of a flamewar, right now. I'm seeing more interesting discussion at the moment by just watching.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by I happen to agree with Ytrewtsu in that this sort of thing does not really stop the practice at all. You simply shift it to a global reward for getting people to vote.

I believe we must accept that there will always be some unscrupulous persons who try to abuse any system at the expense of others, be it income tax, health insurance or just Mud Ranking Lists.

However, as long as those persons get exposed to public disgust and ridicule, I also believe that in the long run they hurt themselves as well as the Community. At least in the case of this list, people with some common sense will dissociate themselves from such sleazy tactics, and react by staying well away from the Mud in question. As for the Twinks, who obviously won’t care one way or another because they are Twinks, they won’t be any great loss to the Community anyhow. Few Mud administrators like Twinks as players.

Originally Posted by I've been getting some useful help from Matt @ Achaea.

I may be overstepping a line here, but this statement made me extremely curious. I thought Matt @ Achaea was the one that caused this entire problem. In what way is he being helpful now?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Tavish wrote: The general attitude of free mud admins seems to be that the more players a mud has the less the quality of a game. While at first I thought this was appaling, the more I thought on it, the more I think it's a cultural trend, or perhaps even human nature.

No, the "general attitude" is that a mud which specifically caters to the masses will sacrifice quality in order to attain quantity - and that isn't a phenomenon unique to muds.

Which would you rather add - a groundbreaking technical feature which was unnoticable from a players perspective, or a new "ninja" class which would attract a few new players? The answer depends on your personal priorities.

A commercial mud, by it's very nature, has to reorganise those priorities - it's no longer a hobby, but a business. It might be nice to add a "cool new feature", but if it doesn't add anything to the gameplay then (from a business point of view) it's probably not worth adding - particularly not when you could spend that time developing something which will improve your profits (and for a commericial mud, "players = profit").

Some free muds have a similar attitude, although this is not always the case - but there is certainly some disdain towards those who (as you put it) "sell out" by catering to the players at the expense of their original vision. I suppose you could compare that to the "ex-underground singer" who changes the words in his song to avoid offending people, or shortens the song to fit in a commercial break at the end, or changes his clothes to something more "socially acceptable", etc.

For many of us developing muds as a hobby, the fun comes from pushing the boundries of what has been done before. Innovation is the goal, and the playerbase is just something that happens on the way. For a commercial mud (unless it has very poor business management) the goal is to get a large playerbase, and any innovations are just stepping stones to get there.

[imported_Synozeer]

Originally Posted by I may be overstepping a line here, but this statement made me extremely curious. I thought Matt @ Achaea was the one that caused this entire problem. In what way is he being helpful now?

He's assisting me with the best way to word the rules so that people can't use loop holes to abuse it. Here's what Matt suggested so far:

Originally Posted by A site listed on Topmudsites's ranking list, or anyone connected with it, may not provide or sponsor rewards to a player or character (if applicable) for going to the voting page or voting, except in the following manner: A MUD may reward its entire playerbase, or at least 80% of the players in it active in the last 12 hours, for cumulative achievements such as achieving a certain rank in Topmudsites, accumulating particular vote totals, or maintaining average vote totals. In no circumstance may the deciding factor in whether an individual receives a particular reward or gift be based on wehther or not he or she voted (or went to the voting page). Further, the level, amount, or intensity of the reward a player or character receives may not be dependent upon voting or going to the voting page. So, rewarding at least 80% of the active playerbase (see above) with 20 gold coins would be ok, while giving 40 gold coins to those who voted and 20 to those who did not is prohibited. Multiple sites listed on Tompmudsites may not conspire to cross-promote each other. For instance, a scheme in which 10 MUDs all asked their players to vote for one of the MUDs during one vote cycle, another the next vote cycle, another the next, etc., would be illegal under these rules. Ok, I think that's it. I suggest keeping the 80% rather than making it 100% to ensure people can't screw MUDs who aren't rewarding a few characters by attacking them with the rules. I can't really think of categories aside from possibly very young newbies that one might be disinclined to include for any good reason, but I figure 80% is high enough that it enforces what you're aiming for well.

I'm still contemplating the best mix of rules and fairness, so any suggestions are welcome.

-Synozeer

[Terloch]

Honestly, just don't allow rewards period, let sites stand on their own merit, not the merit of their rewards system. And yes, before anyone even says anything, I will happily stop giving out anything for getting to certain voting ranks or any such reward of any sort myself on my own mud...

[truthfulthomas]

Originally Posted by As for the location, you could include the information in your description and your ranking listing. You may have no control over the way the features are listed, but you do have control over the order the description is posted and your ranking listing.

I honestly fail how to see this would make any sort of difference. Any mud administration with even a shred of sense with regards to attracting players is going to write a description for the rankings list that will encourage players to take a closer look and then hopefully go on to try out the mud in question. Some commercial muds may figure announcing a free trial period will be a good draw, others may just opt to leave out the fact that the mud requires a fee in order to play and let the player discover that once they've had a closer look at what the mud has to offer. There is nothing underhanded or unethical about either approach. Either way the player will know a fee is involved before any sort of commitment or time and/or emotional investment is made to the mud in question. And any potential player with even a modicum of concern about not wasting their time is going to at least check out the info page in order to see if the mud has the sort of features that they would be looking for. Most players probably would not need more than a few seconds time to discover that a mud is pay-to-play and then make a desicion based on that as to whether or not they are still going to consider the mud for future play.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Honestly, just don't allow rewards period, let sites stand on their own merit, not the merit of their rewards system.

I agree with Terloch on this. Make it: No rewards for voting are allowed, period. Short and simple.
Too longwinded and complicated rules, and nobody is going to read them.

And there always will be unscrupulous people who’ll use loopholes to abuse the system, you can never make anything 100% foolproof against people like that.