[Traveler]

Originally Posted by I guess you missed the latter half of Draeloth's post. In it he correctly states that the business model I intend to use (every business model, for that matter) relies on people knowing that it exists. I wasn't going to post off-topic and talk about how my project is related, but thanks for turning the spotlight.

I missed nothing. I merely made a statement in the same condescending immature manner utilized by yourself. Your 'spotlight' statement is further evidence that you have no use for the MUD playing community beyond the ability to line your pocket. I respond in kind to people the same way they address others.

On another note.

I am not a MUD admin I am only a player. I support this system because I believe it is imperative to have as much information as possible when making a decision. IRE is notorious for restricting the flow of information to players. EX: Not allowing the posting of reviews, discouraging the posting of required lessons for learning charts, avoiding disclosure that it is a pay for perk system until in game.

The more information the better.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Spoke @ Feb. 14 2006,20:10) 3) Mandatory Money Donations by some players to cover hosting costs. 4) Requirement to buy products from associates to cover hosting costs. Add those to the list and it might display a true picture of what is the actual necesity of RL money to play the game. Carrion Fields would check both, then many MUDs would have to check the 3rd (at least all of those that will appear on the first couple of pages and have not checked the previous two)

Actually, we'd check neither. We don't require our players to do either. We've had months (including most of our early years) where player donations didn't cover our expenses, and the ownership covered them out of pocket.

We really are free. I can't emphasize that enough. There are no "Mandatory money donations" or "Requirements to buy".

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Drealoth @ Feb. 15 2006,01:54) The problem here is that every MUD involving money has their own degree of requiredness. Aardwolf gives donating players a special amulet with some minor stat boosts, although this is more in recognition than the player 'buying' the amulet. For most people, the donation is done to donate, not for this amulet. Is that pay to play? With IRE paying money is optional, but without it it would be incredibly difficult for one to become successful in PvP combat (although one can still have a great time in the game without paying a cent). Threshold charges $50 to play, and then you can play forever. MUD2 costs about $10/month to play. The list goes on. Every MUD would require their own category.

1) According to the_logos on another thread, Aardwolf sells ""trivia points" for $2/point, and "quest points" at a rate of 25 per $1."

Quest Points get you more access to all of this fancy in-game equipment, and that equipment "is very powerful and often contains special powers such as permanent haste or sanctuary." Trivia Points can get you custom favors other than equipment. Thus, if the_logos's data is correct (I have not independently confirmed this.. if someone from Aardwolf is around, I'd appreciate it), Aardwolf is pay-for-perks, just like IRE, and would check "optional fees".

2) IRE would check only the "optional fees" box. Threshold has a mandatory one-time fee, and is pay-for-perks afterwards. MUD2 has a recurring fee.

So far, all of those fit neatly into one of the four boxes I've proposed.

[Hardestadt]

Originally Posted by (Drealoth @ Feb. 15 2006,05:58) I don't see why you all have such a big problem with the IRE games. Each of their games' websites have information about the credits system, and when playing the games as soon as you're finished the newbie quest you're told about the credits. As I'm sure the_logos will attest, IRE's business model relies on people finding out that one can spend money on their game.

Well, its motivated by a desire to make IRE's games look bad and send players instead to other games on the list.

There are a few differing motivations here. Valg wants to get further up the charts, and thus get more referals. KaVir is spiteful and wants to hurt Matt in any way he can manage. Sinuhe seems to have anger management issues. On this issue, they don't actually care about players being supposedly mislead at all, or the health of the community, or anything else that is being churned out by their bleeding hearts. The arguments are obviously fueled by their own motives.

-H

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ Feb. 15 2006,10:38) There are a few differing motivations here. Valg wants to get further up the charts, and thus get more referals.

Yup! I've even directly stated this before.

Of course, the only way we'd move up the charts by such a change is if new people come to the site and see "Oh. This other game involves optional/mandatory fees. I'd rather check out this free one." Also, these people would have to outnumber the people who prefer a pay-for-perks scheme because it lets them exchange money they have for time they don't.

I can't twist a player's arm and make them check out my site. But I can ask that the important information is made available up front.

If accurate, honest disclosure of information moves more people to my site (and Armageddon's site, and piles of other free options...), what is bad about that? It's better than the current concealment of that information.

(P.S.: Regarding your KaVir jab, you're aware that the_logos and KaVir agree on this issue, right?)

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Hardestadt @ Feb. 15 2006,16:38) There are a few differing motivations here. Valg wants to get further up the charts, and thus get more referals. KaVir is spiteful and wants to hurt Matt in any way he can manage.

Yeah, I specifically suggested removing the 'pay-per-play' option out of spite, because I knew it would force Matt to leave his mud listings exactly the way they are. Matt's outrage at this obvious attempt to hurt his mud is readily apparent by his response: "Anyway, Kavir is probably right insofar as the easiest and fairest way to do this is just to remove the option to select "pay for play" and make no comment about business model. I'm ok with that or truly full disclosure about revenue models."

Moron.

[KaVir]

Here's another spiteful suggestion: How about adding a text box called "payment model", which is completely optional. You can leave it blank, or fill it in, but if you fill it in it must be both truthful and complete - you can't say "completely free" if there's a registration fee, but you can say "one-off registration fee, then free to play". Other options might be "free to play, but you can buy out-of-game accessories such as t-shirts and mugs via the website" or "free to play, pay for perks, but perks can also be earned through non-payment activities".

[Anitra]

Hardestadt @ Feb. 15 2006,10:38

Originally Posted by On this issue, they don't actually care about players being supposedly mislead at all, or the health of the community, or anything else that is being churned out by their bleeding hearts. The arguments are obviously fueled by their own motives.

It's funny how you know so much about other people's motives, Hardestadt. Next I suppose you will claim that Matt's motives are purely altruistic?

The proposed information should be valid and desirable for a majority of players. Unfortunately the majority of players don't post to, or even read, discussion boards, so we won't hear from them here.

From a player's point of view, the reasons for wanting this type of info are very clear and straightforward. Most of the posters on this board seem to get it. The ones that don't, or pretend that they don't, clearly have 'their own motives' too.

Actually the violent opposition from certain mud owners against a system that to most people would seem logic, fair, correct and infomative makes me wonder what lies behind it.

[Ytrewtsu]

It strikes me that a solution was proposed on a previous thread might actually fit the TMS listings a little better. Instead of having 10 boxes each with their own twisted little meaning, it would be very simple to have two boxes

() Commercial
() Noncommercial

Now it may not be outwardly clear to players exactly what this means for each specific game BUT it does clarify who is running their game as a business and who is running it as a hobby (not making a living off of it). I personally don't think it needs to get any more complicated than that. The players can take whatever inference they want from the boxes and the information would be accurate.

Ytrewtsu

[Aarn]

To quote Anitra:

Originally Posted by Actually the violent opposition from certain mud owners against a system that to most people would seem logic, fair, correct and infomative makes me wonder what lies behind it.

This is really what it comes down to.  If money has an impact on gameplay in the MUD, then people searching for a MUD to play should know that up front.  It's as simple as that.

Of course people like myself, Valg and every other administrator from a truly free MUD have slightly selfish reasons for wanting this pointed out.  We want people to play our games, and we find it completely disingenuous that games that involve cash money get away with advertising themselves as free (or not telling people there is money involved until you're already immersed, which is nearly as bad).  Likewise, of course administrators like logos will fight against having it pointed out, because giving all of the information up-front to people seeking MUDS to play would be bad for their business.  There's a vast difference between pointing out that you can buy things with cash once you're already in the game or captivated by their website, and pointing it out when you're looking at a list of all the muds available to play.

Oh, and Claiming that Carrion Fields counts as a "pay for perks" MUD because someone could potentially cheat AND potentially not get caught and denied by the staff is one of the most ludicrous things I've read here.

[Estarra]

Doesn’t something stick in your craw at the thought of others deciding how to label your MUD? Can you imagine MUD police visiting your game and deciding your world is “Mostly Stock” instead of “Mostly Original”? Or that roleplay is not “Mandatory” but only “Encouraged”? Or deciding that your category should be “Dungeons and Dragons” and not “Forgotten Realms”? How about if someone decides to describe your MUD for you? Wouldn’t you be outraged? I sure would.

And that’s what bothers me whenever this discussion about how to label MUDs comes up. People decide to make up all sorts of labels: pay to pay, pay for perks, optional pay for perks, donations accepted, donations sometimes accepted, optional donation with optional perks that may or may not have an impact on gameplay, mostly free, free but really greedy capitalist pigs in disguise, absolutely free, really really (and I mean REALLY) free, 100% super duper A++ freer-than-you-can-possibly-imagine-in-a-zillion-years FREEEE.

And after making up these labels, some of which are confusing and not obvious, there is an attitude that, “Well, you MUST accept the labels that I in my wisdom have ruled will cover all MUDs. No, I don’t care how you want to describe your MUD. You must use MY labels. And if you don’t use them, then you are a big poopie faced liar who won’t play by my rules which obviously makes you a BIG evil meanie who should be shunned!”

For those who are pushing for these labels, you have to eventually ask yourself, are you or aren’t you asking for the MUD police to enforce your label system? If so, will the MUD police also enforce other labels regarding RP, PK, genre, etc.? If not, then the labels you make up must be embraced by those whom you want to label or else they will decide not to use those labels. And if you know the games your labels are targeting dislike the labels, isn’t it a losing battle?

Just some rambling thoughts.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ Feb. 15 2006,18:38) Doesn’t something stick in your craw at the thought of others deciding how to label your MUD? Can you imagine MUD police visiting your game and deciding your world is “Mostly Stock” instead of “Mostly Original”? Or that roleplay is not “Mandatory” but only “Encouraged”?

That's pretty much exactly how the audits work on TMC, and they seem to do okay.

How would you feel if every stock mud out there listed itself as having a custom codebase with a completely original world, unrivelled gameplay, etc, etc, etc?

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Feb. 15 2006,13<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]That's pretty much exactly how the audits work on TMC, and they seem to do okay. How would you feel if every stock mud out there listed itself as having a custom codebase with a completely original world, unrivelled gameplay, etc, etc, etc?

It honestly bothers me very little if a MUD describes itself however it wants. If someone wants to say that the "mob factory" is their claim to fame original concept, more power to them!

Regarding TMC, you may be right but I only ever recall their 'audit' being they checked that the MUD exists and that it is somewhat accurate with regard to players online. I'd be very surprised if they audited things like "extended race select", "multi-classing allowed", "newbie friendly", etc. Do they really count the number of rooms in every MUD listed to audit the world size?

[The_Disciple]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ Feb. 15 2006,13:58) It honestly bothers me very little if a MUD describes itself however it wants.

Can you honestly say that if someone put up a purely stock DIKU MUD, copied Lusternia's feature list, and registered their stock mud on TMS using Lusternia's description verbatim (outside of replacing all occurances of Lusternia with OwnzorMUD), you wouldn't be the least bit outraged?

It's a serious question. I'd be outraged, but I'm not exactly Gandhi.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ Feb. 15 2006,12:38) How about if someone decides to describe your MUD for you? Wouldn’t you be outraged?

Not if there were reasonable standards. For example, we list Carrion Fields as a ROM derivative, because we are, no matter how little original ROM code survives. If we advertised ourselves as "Original codebase" or "SMAUG", we'd be lying, and I don't expect the community at TMS to tolerate that.

A number of years ago, we had to list our game as "Mostly original" areas, because we had a few stock leftovers. Instead of lying about it, we took the time to cut or replace all of those areas so that we had a world where every area was written for CF. Then, after it was done, we changed out setting so that the listing stayed accurate.

If someone claims "Our MUD is the greatest!", that's clearly a subjective statement, and you're free to make that judgement for yourself. But "IRE games accept optional fees which impact gameplay" is not a subjective statement.

TMS bills itself as a "one stop MUD resource". Why not allow a browsing player to know what kind of commercial model your game uses?

[Aarn]

Originally Posted by Doesn’t something stick in your craw at the thought of others deciding how to label your MUD?

This doesn't really seem relevant to me.  For starters, everyone has input into how the muds are labeled on TMS, through threads like these.  Secondly, we're on the TMS site, so it's up to the TMS people how they label things.

Also, labeling a mud as "free" or "involves money" is hardly some abstract label the communists came up with.  The only reason all those labels exist that you brought up, is because muds that aren't really free keep trying to pass themselves off as free.  That makes the muds that are free for real try to make their label stand out so people understand that, hey, we're really free.  Unlike those people who advertise themselves on the surface as free to get you to come check them out but aren't.

And finally, there are no "mud police".  When it comes to your own literature, you can label yourself however you like.  If someone goes straight to your website and you write "Free!" all over it when it's really not, that's your business.  What's at stake here is how TMS lets you be labeled on their site.  I would argue that it's vital to the integrity of TMS as a whole that they label muds correctly, even if the mud staff is trying to pass themselves off as something they aren't.

[malaclypse]

Originally Posted by Also, labeling a mud as "free" or "involves money" is hardly some abstract label the communists came up with. The only reason all those labels exist that you brought up, is because muds that aren't really free keep trying to pass themselves off as free. That makes the muds that are free for real try to make their label stand out so people understand that, hey, we're really free. Unlike those people who advertise themselves on the surface as free to get you to come check them out but aren't.

The way your boogeymen muds label themselves is actually an industry standard. Don't believe me? Check out the site for Puzzle Pirates. So all arguments of morality aside, its not an uncommon practice.

That being said, I'm wondering if the Carrion Fields boys will be labelling their mud as "Optional payments may influence gameplay.", since it appears they're using a business model of their own. From their site:

Originally Posted by As a thank you for your donation, we will throw in a free email address @carrionfields.com

Now I would be very surprised if they could look me straight in the face and tell me that players with a carrionfields address don't have a bit more respect and influence within the game.

Now obviously the IRE and Carrion Fields business models -are- different, but its mostly a question of scale. The problem I have with