[Iluvatar]

I've never believed in a "banned forever" policy and after the years that've passed, I applaud Synozeer for letting them back in. However, there's no doubt from the "warm" reception that honor, morality and respect for the community at large are still our principles. Based on that, I highly recommend Synozeer reconsider his action before every comment about or by Medievia becomes a long flame war.

I don't begrudge them their success or the money they rake in and I know it's taken many hours of work from dedicated builders and coders to expand what they started with. What I do take offense at is profitting from other people's labors without credit nor compensation AND blatantly throwing it in the faces of the free mudding community with paid for advertisements and votes (tax deductible business expenses). Obviously I'm not alone in that belief.

Oh, and as for the_logos? Well, I guess the thieves aren't so much competition for IRE now so why should he hold grudges. He might even share a few snippets with them to advertise (with suitable credit displayed for the snippets of course). Hmm, Ma Bell of muddom...interesting.

[mudnutx]

While I hate Medievia as much as the next person, I feel some responsibilty to pose the question:

If noone here has seen their medievia 5 [the latest version of their MUD] code, are the arguments against them, especially the ones citing earlier code versions, valid?

I think that Kavir needs to give some sort of answer to that question to have a strong case for accusing them of licence violations.

I am just trying to imagine what soleil et al might say if they attempted to conjure up any remotely intelligent defence of their MUD rather than what are, in essence, "might is right" arguments of saying that if one can get away with anything immoral or illegal that makes it right.

Soleil's defence of the current modified code because it has 500'000 plus lines of c++ code compared to the tiny merc codebase is laughable. That's like saying that I can go to a copyrighted song and use their loop without paying royalties or asking permission. If I took such liberties with one second of any copyrighted song loop lawyers would eat me alive faster than hungry pirahnas in the Amazon.

[Iluvatar]

Originally Posted by Soleil's defence of the current modified code because it has 500'000 plus lines of c++ code compared to the tiny merc codebase is laughable. That's like saying that I can go to a copyrighted song and use their loop without paying royalties or asking permission. If I took such liberties with one second of any copyrighted song loop lawyers would eat me alive faster than hungry pirahnas in the Amazon.

That's correct, except that the in this case, the creators live in Scandinavia and don't make profit off their work for lawyer fees.  That makes it a bit tough for them to sue or otherwise legally pursue, so they quit supporting us according to KaVir. Quite a few other coders have joined the "no freebie" bandwagon also.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 09 2005,03:40) We have been successful all these years without this crap

Actually "this crap" was already around back when Vryce was still with Sultress, so I don't see why you're getting so surprised about it now. Nobody (except the_logos apparently) likes someone who steals from their community, particularly when they then boast about how there's nothing anyone can do about it.

It's like a criminal who's finally allowed to return to the community they were inprisoned for harming, boasting about their crime, then getting surprised when they're not welcomed back with open arms.

I mean honestly, what sort of response did you expect?

Originally Posted by In the end, as Matt has said, nothing you say on these forums will change Medievia and our ever-growing playerbase.

Yet I think those prospective players at least deserve to know the truth about the mud they're about to play.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (mudnutx @ May 09 2005,05:32) If noone here has seen their medievia 5 [the latest version of their MUD]  code, are the arguments against them, especially the ones citing earlier code versions, valid?

Well obviously it's built on the same codebase - so I'm assuming your argument is "Is it possible that they've changed enough that they're no longer a derivative?".

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html

Piecewise Reimplementation

Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement, particularly if the reimplementer had access to the source code of the original program, even if none of the original source code remains.

When the first segment of code is rewritten, the new code will be an infringing work if it is substantially similar to the original code, or may be an infringing derivative work if it is a reimplementation in a different programming language. That reimplemented first segment is combined with the remaining parts of the original program to form an intermediate version. Subsequent modifications produce another work. So when you have completed the piecewise reimplementation, you have a set of works, each of whose creation infringes the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright of the original program.

As an analogy, consider the translation of a novel to a different language, something that would clearly be a derivative work. It makes little difference that none of the original words remain, or that the translation was done a little at a time. The resulting translation is still an infringing derivative work.

Even if you completely replace the program with new code, nonliteral elements also protected by the original program’s copyright are likely to remain and infringe – elements like the overall program structure or architecture and data structures that are not dictated by external or efficiency considerations. Although there is no case law on this point, it would seem that the only way to break the chain of infringing works is by some extraordinary act, such as a clean room implementation.

[Ashon]

Originally Posted by (mudnutx @ May 08 2005,23:32) While I hate Medievia as much as the next person, I feel some responsibilty to pose the question: If noone here has seen their medievia 5 [the latest version of their MUD]  code, are the arguments against them, especially the ones citing earlier code versions, valid?

From what I understand from my friends nearby in Redmond (you know that other evil blackhole of software development! is that, when they are building a piece of software that could even be in 'competition' with an already existing piece of software, is they use the black-room method.

This room is set up with security, the computers are not attached to any outside network, and they are not allowed to bring anything inside the room (lab) with them. I'm sure they have an independent verification of this. But this is just one methodoly that proves that they wrote everything from scratch. It may have been inspired, or influenced in a design way by the other software.

But to have someone who took the DIKU codebase, added code to it, upgraded it. Then did a new version, and then another version. If he hasn't done it completely blackbox, where other people in his company did the programming without knowledge of code in the DIKU Derived versions, then it is still a derivative.

You know at this point, Methievia, and IRE should take hints from Skotos. Do they need to flame and post aggressively to get people to their games? No. They provide a service. If they wanted to post to the boards, and advertise here, I would have done the welcoming, they seem interested in encouraging the hobby, not destroying it, and badmouthing it's respected members.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Ashon @ May 09 2005,17:58) You know at this point, Methievia, and IRE should take hints from Skotos.  Do they need to flame and post aggressively to get people to their games?  No.  They provide a service.  If they wanted to post to the boards, and advertise here, I would have done the welcoming, they seem interested in encouraging the hobby, not destroying it, and badmouthing it's respected members.

And I think it's that sort of attitude that really distinguishes the truly 'professional' muds from the second-hand-car-salesman-"professional" ones.

[Lanthum]

I know this response is a DAY after - on a thread with over 60 responses, but this is so stupid I have to respond ...

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 08 2005,10:42) Firstly, the people whose license we are allegedly breaking don't care at all anymore about this issue, why do you?

Because it's wrong.  Besides, their inactivity does not necessarily equate to lack of caring.  They might have just accepted that doing anything is reasonably out of the question.

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 08 2005,10:42) The players of our game don't care about this issue, why do you?

Because it's wrong!  Anyways, like THAT matters to the rest of us!

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 08 2005,10:42) The various gaming sites who agree to list Medievia and take Medievia's money don't care about this issue, why do you?

Because it's wrong!   Again, like THAT matters.  Decisions based on money don't make them right!

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 08 2005,10:42) So many of you still hold utter contempt towards us at Medievia.  Why? Why do you care THAT much?

BECAUSE ITS WRONG!!!!  Something that you OBVIOUSLY cannot grasp.  To the people who post on these threads about your stealing - right and wrong (on this particular issue at least) must matter to them.


Do you REALLY not understand this?

Originally Posted by (Soleil @ May 08 2005,10:42) Also- not a question but a comment- we do not consider ourselves a DIKU derivative.  ...  Yes I know you are going to state that it doesn't matter as long as we started with something we are still something.  Again, I will state, that the Merc code was 28,000 lines of poorly written C.  Medievia today is almost 500,000 lines of C++.  Just those numbers alone should show that Medievia today is NOT Diku or Merc.

It doesn't matter what YOU consider your self.  It matters what the creators and the rest of the world consider you.  As far as I understand derivative - you are still it.  Until you start with a clean file with nothing in it - and start coding from there - you are a derivative.

Your feelings don't change the facts.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Ashon @ May 09 2005,11:58) [You know at this point, Methievia, and IRE should take hints from Skotos.  Do they need to flame and post aggressively to get people to their games?  No.  They provide a service.  If they wanted to post to the boards, and advertise here, I would have done the welcoming, they seem interested in encouraging the hobby, not destroying it, and badmouthing it's respected members.

Skotos?! Are you serious? When I last talked to Christopher Allen (their CEO), all 7 of their games had less players COMBINED than just one of ours. They spent millions of dollars on development and ended up with...basically nothing. Skotos is the absolute last company any developer with commercial ambitions should look to as an example and Christopher is an honest enough guy that he'd probably tell you the same thing, privately at least.

--matt

[Ashon]

Have you ever heard of the concept of Ethical Business Practices? Probably not.

Skotos has a bunch of flaws. They are more MUSH'es then they are traditional MUD's. Their advertising was not properly executed, and from what I remember about the game itself, was bit cumbersome to play.

But they continue to walk the moral high-ground. No-one has ever accused them of stealing code, they have contributed numerous articles to the community, and numerous ideas. They don't hide behind falsehoods of the games being free to play. They don't ride into the forums, and ruthlessly try to get their mud onto the topmudlist (are they even in the listings?) they don't have admins writing 'player reviews'.

A flawed Business Model, is a completely different issue then having an ethically deficient Business Model.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Skotos has a bunch of flaws. They are more MUSH'es then they are traditional MUD's. Their advertising was not properly executed, and from what I remember about the game itself, was bit cumbersome to play.

Actually, they, as in Skotos, are more of a mini-publisher than developer these days, with a variety of types of games from text muds to graphical muds to some weird hybrids. The MUDs they developed themselves were Castle Marrach and then they co-developed Grendel's Revenge with World's Apart.

Originally Posted by But they continue to walk the moral high-ground. No-one has ever accused them of stealing code, they have contributed numerous articles to the community, and numerous ideas.

No one has accused us of stealing code. We've donated money, helped out MUDs hit by things like hurricanes (Aardwolf), created jobs, I edited Dr. Bartle's book on Virtual World design, have written professionally for Gamasutra,, spoken at sci-fi/fantasy conferences, spoken about independent game development at the Game Developer's Conference, etc. In fact, I just got invited to go to Indiana University this fall to participate (as one of 10 mud/MMO developers, 10 academics, and 10 reps from research and funding foundations) in a 3 day brainstorm session on, "What is the best way to initiate the use of synthetic worlds as tools for controlled research experiments at the macro-social level?"

So you tell me: Should I care that a handful of random forum posters dislike me, or should I focus on the larger picture? I choose the larger picture.

Originally Posted by They don't hide behind falsehoods of the games being free to play.

That's because their muds require a subscription to play, and thus are not free.

Originally Posted by A flawed Business Model, is a completely different issue then having an ethically deficient Business Model.

Subscriptions aren't a flawed business model. Ask Blizzard. Skotos is a flawed company. If you want to hold up a company that literally spent 7 figures to produce what they came up with, go for it. I'm going to choose to admire successful companies myself, oddly enough. If admiring those who succeed is wrong, I'm more than happy to be wrong.

--matt

[Valg]

A good analysis of why pay-for-perks games are de facto not "free", from Dmitri Williams, posting on TerraNova (Link: http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nov...4/sonybay.html ) about a Sony service to allow people to buy and sell virtual objects for their games:

Originally Posted by This is a bad move for gamers because it breaks the social contract inherent in competition. It may be a good short-term move for SOE in that it will rationalize and decriminalize the problem of virtual property distribution, but there's strong potential for the cure to be worse than the disease. A gross-level analogy by way of example: Thor and Biff meet on the PvP field of battle. Both are skilled players and both have the same amount of knowledge. Thor, however, in real life is a 50-year old dentist who makes $85,000 a year. Biff is an undergraduate at Generic State U. with $12,000 and counting in student loans. Thor thus has the +5 Sword of Noggin-nocking, while Biff has the +1 Sword of Thrift. Thor wins. Biff quits, and so do others like him. Thor winds up fighting other Thors, losing his advantage and wondering why he forked out the cash. Eventually, the game stratifies by real-world disposable income rather than by talent or interest. The underlying problem: There is a social contract in gaming just as there is in sports. This is not a PC reaction to "the way things are supposed to be" so much as it is a warning to short-sighted capitalists that some of their value stems from this contract. Messing with it hurts the product. In sports and games, teams and individuals contest on a level playing field. It is meritocratic, not capitalist, nepotistic, classist or elitist, and it is a central underlying reason for the appeal of sports--Joe six pack and Joe CEO can watch and play as equals. When this ideal is violated, there is a violation of that contract--that meta-game. When the ideal is protected, the product is better and more people partake of it. It's why people hate the Yankees and baseball's economic structure is a joke. In contrast, it's why the NFL is the best-run and most popular league in US sports. It's why people hate IGE. And it's why this practice will ruin a game and send customers to better systems.... ....When I was an undergrad I drove from LA out to Prescott, Arizona to visit a buddy going to school out there, and to go and try paintball with him. He'd been raving about it. So I get to the game site and it's about 40 guys, 20 of whom were Vietnam vets. My buddy and I rented paintball guns, but we quickly noticed that a good chunk of the others had brought their own. Ours were single-shot pump-driven models and these fellows had automatics. Needless to say, we were pummeled. Painfully (literally). I didn't mind the fact that 20 of them were better hunters, stalkers and shots than me. I was fine to learn the ropes. I minded paying the same entrance fee and getting my ass bruised by a stream of bullets from automatic guns while I cowered with a pea shooter.

Even if you don't care about the intellectual property theft perpetrated by Medievia, Dmitri's reasons should be sufficient to convince you to avoid the "pay-for-perks" trap, especially when the community offers any number of fair (free or flat subscription) outlets for competitive play.

[Ashon]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 09 2005,15:37) So you tell me: Should I care that a handful of random forum posters dislike me, or should I focus on the larger picture? I choose the larger picture. --matt

So, if you are so interested in the bigger picture, why come across as a prick on the boards? I myself believe that is why most people get into with you.

If your so interested in being respected by any community as obviously you are trying to do on the bigger picture, you shouldn't trash talk, inflame, and generally **** off the random forum posters. It was years ago when MUD-DEV was still rather active and talk about design was tossed around a lot more '99? '00? That people respected you, and your ideas.

It's easy to have a business model based on deceit, lies, and mis-information then it is to take an ethical high-road. Look at all spammers that abound, the MLM scams, the Enrons. It's harder to standup and and be ethical.

If money and a nice car is all it takes for business people to be able to sleep well at night, then so be it. But for most people, I suspect that it's not enough.

I'm sure, Matt, that if you took some of the thought that you have put into your muds, and you applied it to your actions in the Micro-community, you'll find that you can find just as good of an advertising route, as getting flamed constantly.

[Ilkidarios]

Oh Jesus, it's bad enough that Logos is always starting flame wars, but why does everyone just do exactly what he intends by flaming in threads like these? I always say this, but it still holds true: everyone is just waiting for a giant flamewar. It's as if "Logos" knows the right strings to pull just to make everyone jump up and start flaming. Why does everyone come to his beck and call? Every single one of these is just a publicity stunt or him being a fag like he was with the "Anti-America" thing a while back. If a thread like this is made, let Logos say what he wants and don't respond. Otherwise it's like your on a God damned leash.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Ashon @ May 09 2005,16:34) So, if you are so interested in the bigger picture, why come across as a prick on the boards?  I myself believe that is why most people get into with you.   If your so interested in being respected by any community as obviously you are trying to do on the bigger picture, you shouldn't trash talk, inflame, and generally **** off the random forum posters.  It was years ago when MUD-DEV was still rather active and talk about design was tossed around a lot more '99? '00? That people respected you, and your ideas. It's easy to have a business model based on deceit, lies, and mis-information then it is to take an ethical high-road.  Look at all spammers that abound, the MLM scams, the Enrons.  It's harder to standup and and be ethical.   If money and a nice car is all it takes for business people to be able to sleep well at night, then so be it.  But for most people, I suspect that it's not enough. I'm sure, Matt, that if you took some of the thought that you have put into your muds, and you applied it to your actions in the Micro-community, you'll find that you can find just as good of an advertising route, as getting flamed constantly.

These boards aren't part of the bigger picture. Certain community members ensure that by starting flame wars over things as simple as a welcome message to another MUD. That sort of community member ensures this kind of board will never be relevant to the bigger picture. Heh, imagine if E3 or the IGDA banned companies from participation anytime people made unproven accusations about another company. (Which is all they are until they're found guilty by a judicial authority: accusations by highly biased parties.) It's laughable.

A large part of the difference of opinion, to be fair, is that MUDs are part of the games industry to me, while they're a hobby to you. That makes for a very different set of starting assumptions. For instance, one forum member once attacked me for pointing out that quantifying the results of marketing are a crucial stage in the process. What can I even say to that? There's just no grounds for serious discussion if nonsense like that is actually taken seriously and unfortunately, it is taken seriously here. *shrug*

Anyway, it doesn't matter what a handful of people on Topmudsites think of me or Iron Realms. We've got hundreds of players from Topmudsites in our database now and dozens of them online right now. I'm a lot more concerned about the TMS users who love our games than a small group of naysayers, because you'll always get naysayers. Naysayers just tend to be the loudmouthed fringe. It's interesting to note that nearly all the regular attackers happen to be mud admins, not players. Draw your own conclusions. I do!

Listen, this is just pointless. We're going to do what we're going to do, and that's that. You may continue to complain about us all you want, but it's just irrelevant and although you were reasonably polite (which is why I responded), this is wasting my time.

Edit: Salient example in the post above this one. Note the maturity level in calling me a 'fag.' Nothing like homophobic backwater types.

--matt