[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Galleus @ Jan. 17 2006,17:31) The point, I think, is that numerous such examples can be made, further splitting the hairs of the system until you're rivaling hex code for letter/number combinations. The proposed "improvements" have been little more than attempts to redefine things in a way that best serves a vocal minority.

There's that "vocal minority" marginalization attempt again.

I don't think "numerous" examples can be made.  I proposed two checkboxes, and I haven't seen a counterexample that doesn't fit into that scheme.  Please provide one if you're aware of one.

( ) Optional payments may alter gameplay.
( ) One or more mandatory payments are required for continuous gameplay.

Carrion fields, Armageddon, etc.: n/n.
IRE: y/n.
Threshold: y/y.

If you want to get really fancy, it goes all the way up to three checkboxes:

( ) A recurring fee is required for gameplay.

IRE: n.
Threshold: n.
Gemstone: y.

[Fishy]

Heh I have a great idea for a mud.

You start in one room which you can't leave until you have 10 credits.
Every credit costs 5 bucks but you can recieve them from other players! FOR FREE
You can do so by whining and begging!

Once you get your 10 credits you can play THE REST of the game.

However things like fighting a mob, drinking from a pool etc.. will be featured in the first room and it's free to play there as much as you like. And really it's not too hard to whine untill someone fetches their daddy's credit card because they're sick and tired of your bitchin', allowing you to play the rest of the game. (We do not condone mudsex for credits but niether do we condemn it).

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by There's that "vocal minority" marginalization attempt again.

But that's what you are. There are thousands of users of TMS, and all we hear are the same few people, complaining vocally. That's the very definition of a vocal minority. It'd be one thing if TMS users were rising up en masse to demand some redefinition, but the fact is, it's just a handful of people out of thousands of users. You are asking Adam to make a change to the site based on the desires of a very small percentage of the sites' users.

Originally Posted by I don't think "numerous" examples can be made. I proposed two checkboxes, and I haven't seen a counterexample that doesn't fit into that scheme. Please provide one if you're aware of one. ( ) Optional payments may alter gameplay. ( ) One or more mandatory payments are required for continuous gameplay.

I propose two categories, and I haven't seen a counter-example that doesn't fit into that scheme:

() Command & control ultimately by a hobbyist mud admin.
() Command & control ultimately by a professional mud admin.

Are you ok with this as well?

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 17 2006,18:58) But that's what you are. There are thousands of users of TMS, and all we hear are the same few people, complaining vocally. That's the very definition of a vocal minority. It'd be one thing if TMS users were rising up en masse to demand some redefinition, but the fact is, it's just a handful of people out of thousands of users. You are asking Adam to make a change to the site based on the desires of a very small percentage of the sites' users.

The converse argument would be that only the same few people oppose this change, who have a vested financial interest in obfuscating clear disclosure of their business models. This handful of people (out of TMS's thousands of users) is complaining vocally, trying to quash a reasonable suggestion and leaving players in the dark.

Oh noes! Valg can play the "invisible masses all agree with me by their silence" card too.

You might recall that you recently suggested a change to Adam about the voting rules. People discuss things. That's why the website has a forum. I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to cloak your business model, but I don't have to sit quietly in the corner because you told me to.

Come back when you have a more substantial reason why users of this resource shouldn't be able to see your business model up front. Invisible friends don't count.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Valg,Jan. 17 2006,20[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]0]

Originally Posted by The converse argument would be that only the same few people oppose this change, who have a vested financial interest in obfuscating clear disclosure of their business models. This handful of people (out of TMS's thousands of users) is complaining vocally, trying to quash a reasonable suggestion and leaving players in the dark.

I'm not saying that the TMS users support my side or not. I am saying that TMS has been functioning quite well as is and that the only voices we're hearing clamoring for a change are a small handful out of thousands. I'm not arguing for change here: You are.

Originally Posted by You might recall that you recently suggested a change to Adam about the voting rules. People discuss things. That's why the website has a forum. I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to cloak your business model, but I don't have to sit quietly in the corner because you told me to.

No, you don't have to sit quietly. You can ask Adam to make whatever changes he wants. I'm going to pipe up when you do, however, and point out that there's no reason to kowtow to the wishes of such a small minority.

Originally Posted by Come back when you have a more substantial reason why users of this resource shouldn't be able to see your business model up front.

Come back when you have a substantial reason why users of this resource shouldn't be able to see if they're going to be receiving a hobbyist or a professional experience up front.

(Note: I think both of those suggestions have equal value, which is to say, a lot or none depending on your point of view. Very little in mine.)

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 17 2006,20:14) Come back when you have a substantial reason why users of this resource shouldn't be able to see if they're going to be receiving a hobbyist or a professional experience up front.

Art is subjective, and there is no a priori reason to claim a superior experience based on how the MUD's owner derives their income. That said, I'm not opposed to disclosing that status, and never have been-- I didn't like the loaded word "amateur" because of its (intentionally) ambiguous meaning.

However, there is an a priori reason to know the business model-- everyone has a budget (even if it is thousands of dollars), and if you can't afford a game where money matters, you won't be able to play it. Everyone knows their budget, and a good MUD resource would let them know what they are in for.

Conversely, you've argued that some players prefer a pay-for-perks model because it allows them to make a trade (RL money for in-game time) that another game might offer. They might actively search out a game with that criteria. More power to them. I just don't like hiding the information from them.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Art is subjective, and there is no a priori reason to claim a superior experience based on how the MUD's owner derives their income. That said, I'm not opposed to disclosing that status, and never have been-- I didn't like the loaded word "amateur" because of its (intentionally) ambiguous meaning.

I made no claim that hobbyist is inferior to professional. That said, I'm sure at least some percentage of the potential MUD playing population would like to know.

Originally Posted by However, there is an a priori reason to know the business model-- everyone has a budget (even if it is thousands of dollars), and if you can't afford a game where money matters, you won't be able to play it.

Then why is there a problem? There's already a pay to play checkbox. If it costs money to play, that box is checked. If not, it's not, and there's no issue. In our games, for instance, players can play for free, forever.

Originally Posted by Conversely, you've argued that some players prefer a pay-for-perks model because it allows them to make a trade (RL money for in-game time) that another game might offer. They might actively search out a game with that criteria. More power to them. I just don't like hiding the information from them.

Not listing is hiding? Interesting. We're hiding that we have geomancers I guess.

I have no problem with listing our business model, as long as it is described in full and as long as nobody is being forced to advertise certain features on the front page. See other recent posts for what acceptably in full means.

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 17 2006,20:44) I have no problem with listing our business model, as long as it is described in full and as long as nobody is being forced to advertise certain features on the front page. See other recent posts for what acceptably in full means.

Isn't that accurately conveyed by a "yes" to "optional fees may effect gameplay" and a "no" to the question(s) regarding mandatory fees? I felt like we were in agreement there for a while, but your recent posts veered off in a new direction.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Valg @ Jan. 17 2006,21:02) Isn't that accurately conveyed by a "yes" to "optional fees may effect gameplay" and a "no" to the question(s) regarding mandatory fees? I felt like we were in agreement there for a while, but your recent posts veered off in a new direction.

No, I feel that it also requires an explicit distinction between games in which you can acquire everything for free and games in which some things are reserved only for paying customers.

--matt

[karlan]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 18 2006,09:58) I propose two categories, and I haven't seen a counter-example that doesn't fit into that scheme: () Command & control ultimately by a hobbyist mud admin. () Command & control ultimately by a professional mud admin.

I am a professional, and I am a mud admin, but I do not make a living from running a mud, do I qualify as a professional mud admin?.

Your proposal DOES imply that the professional muds are somehow better, and it DOES come across as insulting if you are an admin on a "hobbyist mud".

The initial 2 suggestions from valg do not come across the same way. They do cover the various payment models.

After the first time I looked for a mud on here and tried some of the top ranking muds, I stopped mudding for quite a while (in ignorance, thinking that it seemed muds were based on the dodgy pron site model of claiming to be free but needing money), being able to see the type of payment model would have meant I probably would have gone to my current MUD first off.

And as for the "silent masses" some will be silent because they feel that it is pointless to try and make a comment that will be taken with any weight, unless you somehow have lots of posts in hour history. I myself, frequently swallow my comments because they have already been voiced by others (KaVir, Valg, Molly at times), and the last thing I want to do is increase the noise to signal ratio of these forums.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by karlan,Jan. 17 2006,22[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]1]

Originally Posted by I am a professional, and I am a mud admin, but I do not make a living from running a mud, do I qualify as a professional mud admin?.

No. If I go skiing, I'm not a professional skiier just because I'm a professional <something else>. I think you missed the point of my post though.

Originally Posted by Your proposal DOES imply that the professional muds are somehow better, and it DOES come across as insulting if you are an admin on a "hobbyist mud".

And if you'd read what I'd written, you'd note that I see no value in labeling with such a distinction because it doesn't tell the whole story and implies things that may or may not be true. Most muds ARE hobbies and the admins on them are hobbyist admins. "Do you have a problem with being accurately labeled?" That's the accusation being leveled against me in my resistance to an overly simplistic labeling of business model, and objecting to being labeled a hobbyist (when by every definition of the word, most MUDs are hobbyist enterprises) seems like exactly the same thing. I would not support a "hobbyist" and "professional" distinction not because it's not true (it is) but because it doesn't tell the full story that I, at least, view as relevant.

Originally Posted by The initial 2 suggestions from valg do not come across the same way. They do cover the various payment models.

You mean, they don't come across the same way to you. That's your opinion and you represent yourself. To me, the payment model one comes across as being precisely the same as the professional/hobbyist distinction. That's my opinion, and I represent myself.

Originally Posted by And as for the "silent masses" some will be silent because they feel that it is pointless to try and make a comment that will be taken with any weight, unless you somehow have lots of posts in hour history. I myself, frequently swallow my comments because they have already been voiced by others (KaVir, Valg, Molly at times), and the last thing I want to do is increase the noise to signal ratio of these forums.

So you're in the small minority too. I'm not sure what your point is.

--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Jan. 17 2006,23:04) Originally Posted by And as for the "silent masses" some will be silent because they feel that it is pointless to try and make a comment that will be taken with any weight, unless you somehow have lots of posts in hour history.  I myself, frequently swallow my comments because they have already been voiced by others (KaVir, Valg, Molly at times), and the last thing I want to do is increase the noise to signal ratio of these forums. So you're in the small minority too. I'm not sure what your point is.

Careful. The "small minority" hasn't been staying so small in these threads!

Again, remind me how you know the proposed labeling is supported by only a "small minority" of TMS users? By my rough count, more people have posted in support of it in the two threads than against it(*). How are you able to speak for all of the people who haven't posted?

You might be right for all I know. But you might also be wrong.... and you're definitely wrong to presume you can speak for those people.

(*): A number of the antis are IRE employees... and a little birdie told me you've made it clear to your staff in the past about how you feel about being contradicted here. That's understandable, as your position allows you to speak for your company as a whole, but their positions are hardly independent of what you are writing.

I wouldn't publically contradict my day-job boss either, but it wouldn't be meaningful for him to say "And Valg agrees with me 100%!" given that.

[DonathinFrye]

Matt - there haven't been any threads, or even any posts supporting your Professional versus Hobbyist counter-suggestion.

Matt - the majority of the posters in these threads come from a wide variety of MUDs and have very little relation to each other(and no contact, mostly), and are here doing what forums are meant to do... bring lots of voices together to discuss a single topic.

Matt - the minority of the posters in these threads who argue against these suggestions come from IRE MUDs. As a matter of fact, I've asked for non-IRE counter-arguments several times and I've only received the response of one person(Spoke). And Spoke didn't suggest a Professional vs. Hobbyist MUD either. Also of note is that most of the arguers(most, not all) seem to have very few posts, inferring that they are relatively new posters. Lots of relatively new posters that are either IRE Staff(and a few players)... hmm - I'm not against hearing new forum-users voices at all(I'm new myself), but I didn't come here just to go punch-to-earbite with you on this subject.

You are not the voice of the majority of MUDers, Matt. Neither am I. However, the group of MUDers who are vocal about this topic come from a variety of MUDs(and yes, combining the "hobbyist MUDs" together makes that group larger than the combined "professional MUD" group). The group of MUDers who are vocally against this topic all seem to be from Professional/Commercial(specifically, IRE) MUDs.

Propagandic word-twisting rhetoric has been used in social communities for thousands of years. Being that most of us are at least semi-well educated and intelligent/intuitive, I'd hope that we'd be able to see that Matt is doing it now. Who benefits from keeping players in the dark about objective qualities of a MUD(especially ones that affect cost)? Well, I would too, and yet I still argue the other side of the fence. IRE is obviously tilted on this argument, and I've yet to see one counter-argument to my last suggest(made back on Page 9 of this thread) because the counters have fallen down to word-twisting, name-calling, and selective quote-arguing.

Reader's Digest Version: Don't call us the minority - we come from a variety of games, and not all of them are "hobbyist" to use one of your propagandic terms. Don't call yourself majority - your supporters are almost entirely from YOUR MUD. I'm not negating anyone's point of view, but you are being ridiculous and I hope that the majority of the users here can see that.

I'd be careful of the direction you're going in, Matt - more and more people are beginning to compare you to Vryce, and I'm sure that you(and IRE) won't like or benefit from that in the end. Take that or leave it, as you will.

[karlan]

Originally Posted by Quote - me - I am a professional, and I am a mud admin, but I do not make a living from running a mud, do I qualify as a professional mud admin?. -quote- No. If I go skiing, I'm not a professional skiier just because I'm a professional <something else>. I think you missed the point of my post though.

I am a professional sysadmin, and I do run a mud, and I am fairly confidant I can say I run it in a professional manner, so I AM a professional mud admin, just not a commercial one. It is very frustrating to hear non commercial MU*'s equated with being non professional.

Originally Posted by So you're in the small minority too. I'm not sure what your point is.

I think you missed the point here, you or valg cannot assume that the lack of response from masses agrees or disagrees, but I have seen in a few threads, you and others assume that lack of comment == support

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Matt - there haven't been any threads, or even any posts supporting your Professional versus Hobbyist counter-suggestion.

You don't even read entire posts do you? The entire point of that post was to demonstrate how a distinction, though true, may not contain all the information one feels needs to be given.

Originally Posted by Matt - the minority of the posters in these threads who argue against these suggestions come from IRE MUDs.

So, in other words, if someone is actually familiar with our business model through extensive experience, their opinion is invalidated. That's certainly one way to "win" an argument: simply tell the other side that their opinions have no validity.

Originally Posted by Also of note is that most of the arguers(most, not all) seem to have very few posts, inferring that they are relatively new posters.

I fail to see the relevance. Most users on TMS don't have forum accounts. That doesn't change the value of their opinions at all when they choose to create an account to post.

Originally Posted by You are not the voice of the majority of MUDers, Matt. Neither am I. However, the group of MUDers who are vocal about this topic come from a variety of MUDs(and yes, combining the "hobbyist MUDs" together makes that group larger than the combined "professional MUD" group). The group of MUDers who are vocally against this topic all seem to be from Professional/Commercial(specifically, IRE) MUDs.

No, I'm not the voice of anyone but me, but then, I'm not the one telling Adam he should make changes to his site to satisfy me. All we have seen are a handful of TMS users asking for this change. That's it. Whether you come from hobbyist MUDs or PK MUDs or RPI muds is irrelevant. We have heard from whom we have heard from, and that's a handful of users out of thousands of TMS users, all of whom are visiting and using TMS despite this apparent huge sin of only listing whether a game is "pay-to-play" or not in terms of business models.

Originally Posted by Reader's Digest Version: Don't call us the minority - we come from a variety of games, and not all of them are "hobbyist" to use one of your propagandic terms.

Whether you come from a variety of games or not doesn't change anything. You don't represent anyone but yourselves and that's just a few people. As I've said over and over, there are thousands of TMS users. Do you have a single whit of evidence to demonstrate that your view represents the majority of them? No.

Originally Posted by Don't call yourself majority - your supporters are almost entirely from YOUR MUD. I'm not negating anyone's point of view, but you are being ridiculous and I hope that the majority of the users here can see that.

I didn't call myself the majority. I did say that TMS has thousands of users and only a few of them seem to care about having this change made.

Originally Posted by I'd be careful of the direction you're going in, Matt - more and more people are beginning to compare you to Vryce, and I'm sure that you(and IRE) won't like or benefit from that in the end. Take that or leave it, as you will.

Chuckle.

--matt