[Lanthum]

Over the last week or so, I started checking out a few of the top muds just to see what they are like. And while trying Achaea this last week, ingame I was reminded twice to "Do My Achaean Duty" ... to vote.

Now, I never turned this option on, and I couldn't find a way to turn it off. Which, seems like a violation of the newer clarified rules about voting, this site, and bugging players.

Please understand I am not trying to start a flamewar ... those are just stupid. But I am posting something here for a few reasons: it affords me a small amount of anonymity while playing on other peoples' games; and as was stated in that last thread, the owner of this site probably relies on self-policing by it's members.

[Hajamin]

To clarify, this reminder was originally turned on but you could turn it off with CONFIG. After the changes it seems IRE disabled the reminder, though some people are still getting the message. It's a bug, and I will point it out so it gets fixed quickly. Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't noticed it personally.

[KaVir]

Yeah, those bugs can be really annoying - I'm actually having similar problems with a bug on my mud which randomly lags players who haven't voted, while giving bonus exp and better item drops to those who have. I've already apologised to my players about it, and told them I'll try to fix it in the next few weeks.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Lanthum @ Dec. 21 2005,11:16) Over the last week or so, I started checking out a few of the top muds just to see what they are like. And while trying Achaea this last week, ingame I was reminded twice to "Do My Achaean Duty" ... to vote. Now, I never turned this option on, and I couldn't find a way to turn it off. Which, seems like a violation of the newer clarified rules about voting, this site, and bugging players. Please understand I am not trying to start a flamewar ... those are just stupid. But I am posting something here for a few reasons: it affords me a small amount of anonymity while playing on other peoples' games; and as was stated in that last thread, the owner of this site probably relies on self-policing by it's members.

I think you're misunderstanding the rules. You're allowed to remind people to vote, and they don't need a way to turn it off. That allows mud admins to do things like shout "Please vote for us now!" where the reception of the message has nothing to do with whether you've voted or not.

If, however, you send our reminders to people based on whether they've voted or not, it must be an opt-in system with a way to easily opt-out.

In our case, the system simply reminds everyone to vote, which is perfectly legal, and which would be nearly impossible to patrol for anyway (imagine the accusations, "On 12/20, an admin on MUD Y shouted, "VOTE!!" to everybody in game.")

--matt

[Aeyr]

Heh, Kavir, you're too cute.

[WoDMUD]

I have a gag script on the mud client I use, it makes it easy to ignore annoying events, or people.

[Dovolente]

Originally Posted by You're allowed to remind people to vote, and they don't need a way to turn it off. That allows mud admins to do things like shout "Please vote for us now!" where the reception of the message has nothing to do with whether you've voted or not.

Rules are rules, and lines need to be drawn, sure. But--is it just me, or are shout-out reminders only a very small step away from from autoreminders, on the continuum of lameness?

[Fern]

I am not sure how shout-out reminders violate the rule or the spirit of the rule.

We have no automatic reminder system at LoK. We're grateful to anyone who takes the time to vote, but we neither reward such voting nor penalize those who do not.  We do a single gecho once a day, giving the website address and thanking folks for choosing to vote.  If that violates a rule or spirit, we'll simply stop doing it.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Fern @ Dec. 21 2005,17:58) I am not sure how shout-out reminders violate the rule or the spirit of the rule. We have no automatic reminder system at LoK. We're grateful to anyone who takes the time to vote, but we neither reward such voting nor penalize those who do not. We do a single gecho once a day, giving the website address and thanking folks for choosing to vote. If that violates a rule or spirit, we'll simply stop doing it.

Shout-out reminders do not violate either the rule or spirit of the rule, don't worry. The rules were specifically crafted to allow global messages to people about voting.

--matt

[Anitra]

I’m confused.

If this is all 'perfectly' legal, why then is Hajamin referring to it as a bug, that will be ‘fixed quickly’?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Anitra @ Dec. 21 2005,19:01) I’m confused. If this is all 'perfectly' legal, why then is Hajamin referring to it as a bug, that will be ‘fixed quickly’?

Beats me, though it looked to me like Hajamin misunderstands the rules as well as what was going on on Achaea.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Anitra @ Dec. 22 2005,01:01) I’m confused. If this is all 'perfectly' legal, why then is Hajamin referring to it as a bug, that will be ‘fixed quickly’?

Probably in relation to this comment:

Lanthum: "I never turned this option on, and I couldn't find a way to turn it off."

Which is covered here: http://www.topmudsites.com/rules.shtml

"...Such a system must also allow a player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect, and it must be off by default".

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 21 2005,19:17) 1--> Originally Posted by (Anitra @ Dec. 22 2005,01[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]1)]I’m confused. If this is all 'perfectly' legal, why then is Hajamin referring to it as a bug, that will be ‘fixed quickly’? Probably in relation to this comment: Lanthum: "I never turned this option on, and I couldn't find a way to turn it off." Which is covered here: http://www.topmudsites.com/rules.shtml "...Such a system must also allow a player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect, and it must be off by default".

I'm unsure what your point is, insofar as what Lanthum is talking about isn't the kind of system covered by the rule you quote.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Dec. 22 2005,01:29) I'm unsure what your point is, insofar as what Lanthum is talking about isn't the kind of system covered by the rule you quote.

The rule I quoted states:

"You cannot have a system that ‘nags’ a player about voting in response to whether they’ve voted or not unless participation in the system is totally voluntary with no tangible positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system. Such a system must also allow a player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect, and it must be off by default."

Could you please clarify in what way exactly the system Lanthum described is not covered by the above rule, and provide a reference to the appropriate exception clause in the rules?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 21 2005,20:03) Could you please clarify in what way exactly the system Lanthum described is not covered by the above rule, and provide a reference to the appropriate exception clause in the rules?

I already did, in my first post in this thread. Go read it.

--matt

[Angie]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 22 2005,03:03) The rule I quoted states: "You cannot have a system that ‘nags’ a player about voting in response to whether they’ve voted or not unless participation in the system is totally voluntary with no tangible positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system. Such a system must also allow a player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect, and it must be off by default." Could you please clarify in what way exactly the system Lanthum described is not covered by the above rule, and provide a reference to the appropriate exception clause in the rules?

It is not covered by the rule because it does not distinguish between players "in response to whether they’ve voted or not". In that sense, an automated message that gets sent to everybody is no different from a global shout by an admin, and is perfectly in accordance with TMS rules.

Does it disadvantage muds that refuse to nag? Sure. Is it against the rules? Nope.

[Anitra]

I guess the reason why I, and apparently others too, where confused is that the rules were modified twice in as many days.

Originally Posted by Synozeer 1: Posted: Dec. 12 2005,22:42 You also cannot have a system that "nags" a player about voting (regardless of whether they voted or not) unless it is totally voluntary with no positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system, and it must allow the player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect. Synozeer 2: Posted Dec. 13 2005,09,07 You cannot have a system that ‘nags’ a player about voting in response to whether they’ve voted or not unless participation in the system is totally voluntary with no tangible positive or negative effects for a player choosing to use or not use such a system. Such a system must also allow a player to easily opt out of it at any time, also with no positive or negative effect, and it must be off by default. What this results in is that is: - Allows global messages (a shout from an admin, or whatever). - Prohibits systems that force players to see vote messages that are dependent on whether they’ve voted. - Allows the sort of system that Aardwolf employs, which is a completely voluntary system. Thanks to Matt for the wording and input. Synozer 3: Posted: Dec. 14 2005,01:43 Now, I'll just clarify a few things: Voting reminders and the like must be OFF by default and stay OFF unless the player turns it on themselves.

[Lanthum]

Ok, I understand what Matt is saying. And that makes sense. I was misunderstanding - though not the rules, but his system. I thought it was something that was "nagging" me, because I "did not vote".

But I still have the question of why Hajamin said he doesn't see them. It sounds as if SOME players are getting them, and others are NOT. And that would be (should be) against the rules.