[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.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Lanthum @ Dec. 21 2005,21:53) 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.

It's not illegal for some players to get them and others not to get them. It's only illegal if you're basing who gets them on whether someone has voted or not.

[Lanthum]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Dec. 21 2005,20:55) It's not illegal for some players to get them and others not to get them. It's only illegal if you're basing it on whether someone has voted or not.

So then how do you decide who gets them and who doesn't.

[the_logos]

Well, I'm not really sure what you're asking, since from early last week until today, we just broadcast global messages every 3 hours while we waited for Adam to decide what he wanted the rules to be.

Now that he's decided, we'll be creating a more sophisticated system.

[Hajamin]

Originally Posted by (Lanthum @ Dec. 22 2005,10:53) 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.

That was my misunderstanding, I didn't realize it changed to go out every 3 hours and just never notice it myself as I log in and out constantly all day. Sorry for the confusion there.

[tehScarecrow]

IRE games now have a configurable reminder in the prompt itself. I am going to be voting regularly until Belakai ****es me off again Brilliant idea I must say.

[Galleus]

Well, I shall have to see to it that that does not happen, then.

*crackwhip*

[Richter]

Originally Posted by (tehScarecrow @ Dec. 22 2005,10:47) IRE games now have a configurable reminder in the prompt itself. I am going to be voting regularly until Belakai ****es me off again Brilliant idea I must say.

Quite a brilliant idea indeed. I've voted every time since I set that to have "vote" in my prompt (huzzah to the IRE codemonkeys). It goes away when I do vote, and pops up the next time, so I'll be voting every twelve hours from now until the time I quit playing.

Which will be never.

[Gorgulu]

From Lusternia.

ANNOUNCE NEWS #492
Date: 12/24/2005 at 1:11
From: Roark Libertas
To  : Everyone
Subj: Config Voting

You can now use CONFIG VOTING to set reminders on voting for Lusternia
at TopMudsSite.com. By default it is off. You can opt-in with CONFIG
VOTING ON or CONFIG VOTING PROMPT. The first option will send you
periodic reminders until you register a vote on the site, and then the
reminders will end for about 13 hours. (TMS only registers duplicate
votes every 12 hours.) It will also show you where Lusternia is in the
MUD rankings and how many more votes until we reach the next level. The
second option, "PROMPT", will put the voting in your command prompt
rather than using periodic messages.

Exposure on the TMS site is very important for Lusternia. It is a great
tool for attracting new players to the realm, giving you new people to
interact with and growing the game. So if you appreciate Lusternia,
please turn on one of these reminder options and vote for your favorite
MUD!

(See HELP VOTING for a full explanation on TMS voting and what it means
for Lusternia.)

Penned by My hand on the 15th of Urlachmar, in the year 136 CE.

[prof1515]

I still believe the "Top MUD" list should be broken up into more-regulated categories because ultimately, it's useless to potential players for finding quality (most of the "top MUDs" are of the same type, and most of the MUDs listed blatantly lie about their nature).  Instead, it's just a listing of popularity based upon how pathetically fanatical the playerbase is or how creatively unethical or ahead-of-the-rules some of the MUDs out there can be.

I realize that the traffic is the incentive for TMS's format, but it really is a useless feature for introducing people to MUDs that probably does more to hurt the MUDding community than help it since it doesn't reward quality, something that would go a lot further in helping every MUD (ok, the total crap out there is probably beyond hope, but if you make it easier for quality to compete with quantity, you cause/inspire both to improve).

Make one of the categories, "most fanatical playerbase" if you like.  That'll probably preserve the Top 20 as they are now.  But it'd be nice if there was something a bit useful about the TMS page too.

Take care,

Jason

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ Dec. 25 2005,03:08) I still believe the "Top MUD" list should be broken up into more-regulated categories because ultimately, it's useless to potential players for finding quality (most of the "top MUDs" are of the same type, and most of the MUDs listed blatantly lie about their nature).  Instead, it's just a listing of popularity based upon how pathetically fanatical the playerbase is or how creatively unethical or ahead-of-the-rules some of the MUDs out there can be. I realize that the traffic is the incentive for TMS's format, but it really is a useless feature for introducing people to MUDs that probably does more to hurt the MUDding community than help it since it doesn't reward quality, something that would go a lot further in helping every MUD (ok, the total crap out there is probably beyond hope, but if you make it easier for quality to compete with quantity, you cause/inspire both to improve). Make one of the categories, "most fanatical playerbase" if you like.  That'll probably preserve the Top 20 as they are now.  But it'd be nice if there was something a bit useful about the TMS page too. Take care, Jason

It's useless to players trying to find a new MUD? Weird. If that were the case, one would think that we'd have no players from TMS, instead of the literally thousands of players we have that came to us because of TMS.

Some people consistently seem to want to attribute something to TMS that it isn't. They want to turn the top lists into some sort of subjective rating system, or whatever. TMS works great: You send traffic, you get traffic back.

--matt

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by It's useless to players trying to find a new MUD? Weird. If that were the case, one would think that we'd have no players from TMS, instead of the literally thousands of players we have that came to us because of TMS.

It's not useless if you're a player from a MUD looking for a new MUD, just less useful for finding a good MUD.  It's also useless if you're new to MUDding altogether, since those potential players aren't being exposed to the best, and may not be aware how the rankings are determined.  As there's no front-page explanation, they might actually think the list is objective....

Originally Posted by Some people consistently seem to want to attribute something to TMS that it isn't. They want to turn the top lists into some sort of subjective rating system, or whatever.

Correction, some of us would like to see it turned into an objective rating system.  As it is right now, it's not objective.  It's dominated by the Viagra MUDs, themselves filled with players who have an invested monetary interest rather than those who appreciate quality.  Additionally, it's primarily dominated by MUDs that have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the welfare of the community, ethics, etc.  Not surprisingly, these are primarily one of two kinds:  utter crap or commercial MUDs (sometimes both apply).  I've tried all of the Viagra MUDs a couple times.  They're all inferior in quality to one or more free-to-play MUDs offering the same features but which do not get as much publicity or players.  Sure a few quality MUDs manage to make it into the front page, but most don't.

The "thousands of players" you've gotten from TMS probably didn't go beyond the Top 20 before settling on playing one of  your MUDs.  Some of course have no interest in doing so, since the MUDs offered allow them to use money to advance.  Others, they think that the higher the rating, the better the MUD.  Had they explored a bit more, they'd have found better games, less popular but better, in the lower ranks.  And that's why the service if flawed.  Why bother to even rank beyond 20 since the majority of players seem to stop before they've gotten past page 1?  Just show the top 5 of various categories.  If a Viagra MUD can't make the top 5, it's doing something wrong since it's got legions ("thousands of players") that have an interest, beyond quality, in promoting their MUD.  If they don't vote enough to make the top 5, what's that say about those MUDs?

Would I and others like to see TMS do something more?  Yes.  Why?  Because it'd be better for the MUDding community as a whole.  It'd be nice to see Top MUD Sites be more objective but it's not an easy (or probably even possible) proposition.  But at least it could offer more to those looking for something other than Viagra MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

[Nexty]

Originally Posted by It's also useless if you're new to MUDding altogether, since those potential players aren't being exposed to the best, and may not be aware how the rankings are determined.

You can not say the top 20 are not the best MUDs for a specific player. What makes a MUD "the best" is a personal thing and therefor fully subjective.

Originally Posted by As there's no front-page explanation, they might actually think the list is objective....

Or they may think it is subjective. Do you have any real data to suggest that a strong majority of people who come to this site view the MUD rankings as anything more then subjective?

Originally Posted by Correction, some of us would like to see it turned into an objective rating system.

For what purpose? How would you even go about doing such a thing? What makes "the best" MUD? There is no way to create an objective way to say one MUD is overall better then another or that one feature is better then another or one MUDs way or doing something is better then another MUDs way of doing something.

Originally Posted by It's dominated by the Viagra MUDs, themselves filled with players who have an invested monetary interest rather than those who appreciate quality.

Because those who invest money into a game can't appreciate quality? Personally I don't think I'd invest any money into a game that didn't have qualities I enjoyed. And yes, the fact that one could spend money to advance could be a quality that I value over other things and that's just as valid as any other reason to play any particular MUD.

Originally Posted by Additionally, it's primarily dominated by MUDs that have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the welfare of the community, ethics, etc.

How does an interest in the welfare of the MUD community have anything to do with how well the MUD is in and of itself?

Originally Posted by I've tried all of the Viagra MUDs a couple times. They're all inferior in quality to one or more free-to-play MUDs offering the same features but which do not get as much publicity or players.

Do you fully understand the difference between a subjective and a objective observation? The objective observation is when you see the exact same(or similar enough) feature on both a pay and free MUD. The subjective observation is saying a pay MUD is inferior to the free MUD.

Originally Posted by Others, they think that the higher the rating, the better the MUD.

Which is not nessisarly untrue. A high rating MUD may very well be better for that specific player as what is a better MUD for a player is a subjective thing.

Originally Posted by And that's why the service if flawed.

The service works exactly as intended as far as I can tell. The service ranks MUDs based on player votes. The more players vote for a MUD the higher that MUDs ranking is. The only thing the rankings do is tell a perspective player that a particular MUD seems to have players that vote. The flaw would be reading into the rankings any more then that.

Originally Posted by Why bother to even rank beyond 20 since the majority of players seem to stop before they've gotten past page 1?

Any solid evidence to suggest that most potential players stop at page 1? And if they are doesn't that suggest that they have found a MUD they enjoy within those first 20?