[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds I'm sure Valg can answer for himself.

My post was nothing to do with Valg. It's to do with a point you keep harping on that's entirely ad hominem: "this is just admins, not players". Even if it were true, it's out of bounds, and you've been getting a free pass on it. That's over.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by chaosprime My post was nothing to do with Valg. It's to do with a point you keep harping on that's entirely ad hominem: "this is just admins, not players". Even if it were true, it's out of bounds, and you've been getting a free pass on it. That's over.

Dude,

I seriously wonder if you actually read before you post. No one got a "free pass". You act like this is some poor dramatic scene in a badly roleplayed mud. Read my posts and the reasons for my replies. Each reply has been in direct response to my research and statements being challenged. They aren't offensive, they aren't dramatic, they are simple facts based on information at hand. When I'm wrong, I'm happy to be clear on it. When someone says "nothing has been proven" I'm happy to provide information to the contrary. If you make another wild dramatic post like "You will get no more free passes on it. It's Over man!!!". I will be happy to respond. And hopefully with some factual basis.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds They aren't offensive, they aren't dramatic, they are simple facts based on information at hand.

Do you even know what ad hominem means? It's not a description based on whether something is offensive or dramatic. It means addressing the people making the arguments, not the arguments themselves. Your two big hobby horses right now, "it's admins not players" and "onoz sock puppets", are both pure ad hominem.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by chaosprime Do you even know what ad hominem means? It's not a description based on whether something is offensive or dramatic. It means addressing the people making the arguments, not the arguments themselves. Your two big hobby horses right now, "it's admins not players" and "onoz sock puppets", are both pure ad hominem.

I can't believe I actually have to repeat my own post to show you what I was refering to when I said you were being dramatic: "You've been getting a free pass. That's over." There, is that clear enough for you what I was referring to?

As for what I stated before. I was responding to direct challenges to my posts that were incorrect. What part of "responding to posts" are you having trouble with? Pointing the finger of "ad hominem" as if you are some director of a high school debate team is irrellevant when the argument is about a response to a post and the value in that post and argument. The fact remains that the "controllers" (call them admin, call them players, call them puppets, call them robots) of several muds who have a certain view on what "Free" means, are arguing against "controllers" of commercial muds that view it differently. The line is very clear in the sand. The reasons for each side are also clear. The supposed "guise" that this is about what "players" want is a complete farce. THAT is the point I'm making. It is relevant, it has value, it is not an argument to take away from the thread. It is an argument that has merit.

Why is it that you cannot even address that perhaps there are motivations to this thread? I clearly see them. I'm not against stating my motivations clearly: my motivation is to be against a set of boxes that are being proported as "wanted by players" when there is zero proof of that, but rather are being toted as a device for gain by some muds and loss by others. My motivation is to give a more clear better choice for all "controllers" not just the ones that have their mud set to the most advantage position in such a search. I wish to be fair to both free and commercial muds. I think that IRE and Threshold are very clear about their commercial costs associated to players. And both sets of games are free to play. I posted early on to glean more motivation clarity when I asked which button each mud would check. Very few answered this post.

You yourself have come out and said the following:

Originally Posted by chaosprime Why in the world is it SO important to stop people from having easy access to this information? Really, it's disgusting. I've lost so much respect for commercial MUD operation, throughout this, because of the way it apparently compels one to fight tooth and nail against anything that interferes with the ability to perform misleading advertising.

I mean, please. You can make this statement, but poo poo on anyone who disagrees and makes a similar statement against you? If you feel that everyone posting here is altruistic, I think you need to re-read this thread.

[chaosprime]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Why is it that you cannot even address that perhaps there are motivations to this thread?

Because when I speak to people's motivations, I get told by moderators to stick to arguments, not people's motivations.

The question of why I'm the only one who will call you on the same behavior is left as an exercise for the interested student.

[Newworlds]

Just for clarification I would like to post a recant on my alledgement of Arabis' motivations in posting. Sorry about that Arabis if I used your posts as an example of possible foul play. I have sent Arabis a pm, but thought it fair to help clear that up openly.

[shasarak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds The fact remains that the "controllers" (call them admin, call them players, call them puppets, call them robots) of several muds who have a certain view on what "Free" means, are arguing against "controllers" of commercial muds that view it differently. The line is very clear in the sand. The reasons for each side are also clear. The supposed "guise" that this is about what "players" want is a complete farce. THAT is the point I'm making. It is relevant, it has value, it is not an argument to take away from the thread. It is an argument that has merit. Why is it that you cannot even address that perhaps there are motivations to this thread? I clearly see them. I'm not against stating my motivations clearly: my motivation is to be against a set of boxes that are being proported as "wanted by players" when there is zero proof of that, but rather are being toted as a device for gain by some muds and loss by others.

We've had quite a large number of non-admins post to this thread, now, all of whom have been in favour of expanding to a 4- or 5-option system, with the exception of Emil who has yet to express an opinion but clearly has significant issues with MUDs that advertise themselves as free but aren't. No player has yet posted to this thread requesting that players not be permitted to choose whether to search for commercial MUDs or non-commercial ones.

Are you really trying to claim that this is "zero proof"? What exactly is your evidence that players would be actively harmed by being given a search option they do not currently possess?

You and Threshold can harp on as much as you like about the alleged agenda of non-commercial MUD admins, but unfortunately the more you do, the more it rebounds on you. Let us suppose that it really is true that preventing admins from advertising MUDs as "free" when they aren't would provide a marketing advantage to the admins of MUDs that actually are free. If that is the case then, by your own logic, admins of pay-for-perks MUDs would retain an existing marketing advantage by retaining the status quo. Therefore, by your own logic, we should ignore the opinion of anyone who is the admin of a pay-for-perks MUD, because they are simply advocating a position which benefits them financially rather than thinking of what is good for the players.

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways: you're either right or you're wrong, and if you're right then you disqualify yourself from the thread by the same argument.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Valg 1) That's no more or less verifiable than "RP required" or "G-rated". The admin could be off having OOC conversations or mudsex with some players, and unless they did it in front of you, you wouldn't know.

If you don't see OOC, it doesn't affect you, so it doesn't matter whether you know it happened or not. If I, as an admin, am chatting OOCly with my fellow admins or, in private with a player (in order to resolve a customer service issue or something), it has absolutely zero effect on your experience. Presumably the idea here is, after all, to provide information that impacts a player's experience (not sure what the point is otherwise).

Further, it IS possible for an admin to actually enforce these rules 100%. It IS possible to monitor all communication in-game and enforce a policy that bans certain types of communication (OOC, x-rated, whatever).

That's not the case for RMT/first-party sales. An admin can never honestly say it doesn't happen in his MUD because it doesn't happen in his MUD. It happens outside of it - outside of both his control and knowledge.

2) That applies equally to the two-box system. So what you're arguing for is a zero-box system, where TMS throws up its hands and the only thing you're allowed to search for is MUD name, or connection protocols.

Again, whether violations of RP or a G-rating affect your experience as a player are verifiable. It makes zero difference whether the admins of an RP-enforced MUD chat privately OOCly. If you don't see it, it doesn't affect you.

I'd argue that real-money transactions are basically the same in that they don't directly affect you if you don't see it, but I suspect I'm in a minority there. The argument being implicitly put forth by many posters is that it does affect you even if you don't see it.

Allowing a MUD to check a box that says that something completely outside of the scope of their knowledge and control (since it happens out of the game) is not happening is a little bit...off. Taking a cue from another current discussion on TMS about IM in RP enforced games, it would be completely dishonest for a MUD to claim that players aren't sharing IC information via IM. The admins have no way of detecting it or knowing it.

This would essentially disable the search feature, leaving TMS's primary utility for finding MUDs the ranking list.

Well, that's not actually different from now. As Lasher has said, the primary way people find MUDs now IS the ranking list, not the search feature. That's not to say the now situation is preferable to other situations. Just pointing it out.

It's pure obfuscation, and it's the only thing you or Threshold have offered so far-- confuse the issue with unproven hypotheticals.

Perhaps you should review the title of this thread. "What does Free mean?" The entire thread is hypothetical given that language has no objective meaning.

Discussing the facts behind the reality of running online games is not "confusing" the issue. You may be uncomfortable with those facts (such as that it is not possible to honestly claim that money doesn't affect gameplay) but that doesn't change them.

You may feel it's convenient to discard some facts or avoiding certain lines of questioning because it makes arriving at a conclusion more difficult (or maybe I'm misreading what you're saying), but I don't really believe it's in anyone's best interest to arrive at a legitimate conclusion that way.

--matt

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by shasarak We've had quite a large number of non-admins post to this thread, now, all of whom have been in favour of expanding to a 4- or 5-option system,

Um. No. Large number is not 5 or 6 in a Forum that boasts 1000's of members. Also, which of these 5 or 6 have been in favour? As I posted earlier only a few were, maybe 3 or 4. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by shasarak No player has yet posted to this thread requesting that players not be permitted to choose whether to search for commercial MUDs or non-commercial ones.

This is a classic railsplit argument. No one has made such a claim.

Originally Posted by shasarak Are you really trying to claim that this is "zero proof"? What exactly is your evidence that players would be actively harmed by being given a search option they do not currently possess?

Again, who said anything about players being harmed. What are you talking about Shasarak?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Emil I didn't remember seeing anything about all this on the website, so now I went back to check it again. Being a bit more observant this time, after having heard the word in the mud, I clicked on the credits link at the bottom, which I earlier had dismissed as the place where you pay homage to all the people who have contributed to creating the mud. This was actually a rather easy mistake to make, because that is what the word 'credits' is used for in all Diku based muds, which is what I have mainly been playing. Did I feel decived? Sure I did.

It's right there on the front page. *shrug*

Did I feel that I had wasted my time? Sure I did.

Well, that's unavoidable really. I generally feel I've wasted my time when trying games given that I tend to only like about 10% of the ones I try.

--matt

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Um. No. Large number is not 5 or 6 in a Forum that boasts 1000's of members.

Just out of curiosity I went and looked at the member list.

Since the change to the new forum software on 1st July, of the 3671 members we have listed 3122 have never used the forum. You can tell because their "Last Visit" time is displayed as 01-01-1970.

So I think it's fairly safe to count them out, leaving us with 549 members.

Of those, only 97 have posted somewhere on the forum since this topic started on the 22nd August.

Why did I do this? I was bored!

Then you have to take out people who only joined to post adverts for their MUD or to ask for staff, or to ask a question or two, and haven't taken part in any discussions. I have no idea how to work that out save by going through all 549 and seeing what they've posted. I'm not THAT bored!

It does mean that your 5 or 6 is 0.11% of 549 rather than 0.016% of 3671 There's also been 35 participants in this thread and I'm sure more than 5 or 6 spoke up for the 5 option system... If you're feeling generous and will grant me that half have spoken in favour of it, that's 17 which is 17.5% of the 97 people who've posted on the forum since this topic appeared.

General Elections in the UK at the moment seem to have around a 65% turnout rate, which means 35% of the people don't really care or think their opinion won't change anything. If we use this as a our number of posters who only came here to post adverts etc, 97 becomes 58 (rounded up).

So of a possible 58 participants, 17 who said yes constitute 29%! Not a majority, but not a small number either...

What does all this go to show? Statistics are a pile of crap which shouldn't be believed and I'm one bored moderator

Disclaimer: This post was mainly meant as a joke. Since my attempt at warning you all from attacking each other didn't work I thought I'd try distraction! If that doesn't work it's the NERFHAMMER for you lot

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Xerihae Just out of curiosity I went and looked at the member list. Since the change to the new forum software on 1st July, of the 3671 members we have listed 3122 have never visited the site. You can tell because their "Last Visit" time is displayed as 01-01-1970.

I know you're mainly kidding but keep in mind that we're not talking about the forums. We're talking about a feature regarding TMS at large, which has far more users than 3671. The forum users are a small minority of the entire site traffic. By definition, in fact, they're not representative of the TMS user base.

--matt

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by chaosprime And I see you are still unwilling to stop going ad hominem.

"Going ad hominem" ... *chuckle*

Originally Posted by chaosprime Do you even know what ad hominem means?

I love irony.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Xerihae Since the change to the new forum software on 1st July, of the 3671 members we have listed 3122 have never used the forum. You can tell because their "Last Visit" time is displayed as 01-01-1970.

Your post may have been made mainly as a joke, but it still provides some very interesting statistics. I suspected that the percentage might look a bit like that, but it was actually a bit worse than expected, unless there is something that I'm missing.

When you say 'members', do you mean 'registered members' or just 'visitors'?

So only 549 'members' out of 3671 have ever used the Forum?
Does that mean that they never even entered the Forums to read the discussions, or that they just never posted there?

And are there any statistics over how many of the visitors that actually use the other utilities provided by the website, and how many that just click the vote button and then leave?

There are way too many Mud-related sites on the net to keep track of, and most of them have voting lists, obviously to attract 'traffic'. Most of those Top lists look completely different, which in turn makes their value very disputable. And is a 'traffic' that never gets further than the voting button really a traffic that counts?

To me the Discussion Boards have always been what makes me come back to - or leave - a Website. Apart from some very specialized sites - (like for instance Mudlab and CWG) - so far TMC and TMS are the only ones that have discussions interesting enough to attract my attention for any length of time. True, the quality of the discussions varies over time. TMS was pretty dead for several years, but seems to have been successfully revived, while TMC, who always has had - and still has - very lively discussions, seems to have degenerated a bit, since most of the threads there have a low signal to noise ratio lately. Still, this could - and probably will - swing again.

If you feel bored again, it would be interesting to see some more statistics.

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Molly When you say 'members', do you mean 'registered members' or just 'visitors'? So only 549 'members' out of 3671 have ever used the Forum? Does that mean that they never even entered the Forums to read the discussions, or that they just never posted there? And are there any statistics over how many of the visitors that actually use the other utilities provided by the website, and how many that just click the vote button and then leave?

When I say "members" I mean people in the Members category. These people have completed registration and got past whatever bot-smacking system Lasher has in place, but may or may not be bots from the previous forum software (but since they haven't posted I'd guess not).

Only 549 members have ever been on this forum since the new software was added. Anyone with a Last Visit date of 01-01-1970 has never logged in to the forum since the 1st July when their old user accounts were imported to the new system.

Of those 549, only 134 have actually posted at least once since the change. What they posted I don't know, although 134 is a lot less to go through to see whether they've just posted adverts or not so I might get bored enough to do it at some point.

Whether the other statistics exist I have no idea, you'd have to ask Lasher. The only ones I've been using have been from perusing the members list and using the advanced search function, which is open to everyone I believe

And the_logos, I changed a bit in my first post to indicate forum use and not site visits However, it could be argued that those users of the site who care enough to have their opinion of the site or issues to do with MUDding in general noted would join the forum. The rest are part of the "we don't care/doesn't affect us/have no opinion" majority I guess.

[shasarak]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Again, who said anything about players being harmed. What are you talking about Shasarak?

The sole purpose for the existence of the search facility is to benefit players looking for MUDs. Unless players doing searches on TMS would be adversely affected by the change to a 4- or 5-option system, there cannot therefore be any objection to making such a change. Since you are arguing so vociferously against the change you must presumably therefore be arguing that players would be adversely affected by it. How, exactly?

Or are you in fact arguing for purely selfish reasons and you couldn't care less about what benefits players doing TMS searches?

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Point 1. I still see you are unwilling to accept the fact that this thread is basically a group of Admins arguing over the Definition of Free and has no relevancy in what "players" want.

Both players and admins have participated. The people primarily impacted by a change to the search function are players. Offering them options (instead of the current near-all-inclusive non-option) to help them differentiate between games with very different business models would benefit them, yes.

Even if this thread was all admins, why would that make them incorrect? Why not address the substance of the matter-- the current search option is so vague as to lump nearly all MUDs in one category?

Originally Posted by Newworlds That is the main point I have proven. Secondly, I never "dismissed" anyone's opinion or called them worthless. What I did was call the poster suspect and I only did that with two posters, on the rest I made the point of their posts being on both sides of the argument. As for the two posters I called suspect, neither one has proven anything other than one of them making a new post. I have since sent him a private message so as not to cause any conflict in public.

You accused them, on zero evidence, of being sham accounts. This implies that their contributions were fraudulent, thus worthless. It's not exactly conducive to drawing new people into the discussion, also.

[ScourgeX]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Again, who said anything about players being harmed. What are you talking about Shasarak?

If this isn't what all the fuss is about, then why are there such strong objections to changing the search criteria?

The only other reason I can think of is that muds would be harmed.

There have been other arguements as well, however those arguements could be applied to much of the existing search criteria.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by shasarak The sole purpose for the existence of the search facility is to benefit players looking for MUDs. Unless players doing searches on TMS would be adversely affected by the change to a 4- or 5-option system, there cannot therefore be any objection to making such a change. Since you are arguing so vociferously against the change you must presumably therefore be arguing that players would be adversely affected by it. How, exactly?

The adverse affects by the 5 option system are clear. It will falsely lead players to muds based on inaccurate definitions. I will break them down and explain:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
Already this is a bad model as it groups donations with payment. You can't require a donation for a service. If so, it is no longer a donation.

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to access some content.
What does this mean. Some content? What content? You mean I'd check this if you can't access the forums without donation? What about registration? Again hard to define.

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game.
This is odd as well. What results? Who would check this box? What do we define as a result? And what do we define as a payment or donation? This is the crux of the argument.

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game.
Anyone could check this box if they interpret this the way they wish. Who could say they really have zero results in a game when a player donates $2000.00. Be serious. Again the argument about what is a result has been gone over numerous times to no avail.

[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.
This is the endall be all. Again the reason I'm for the 2 box system. Either you have some form of payment in your game or you do not. Very simple. Very direct. No grey areas to mess with.

Originally Posted by shasarak Or are you in fact arguing for purely selfish reasons and you couldn't care less about what benefits players doing TMS searches?

[sarcasm]Yeah that's it Shasarak. I don't want to help any players in TMS searches. In fact, if I could stop players from finding NW that would be great.[/sarcasm]

[Emil]

Originally Posted by KaVir Do you think that the proposed four-choice (or five-choice) suggestion might have made a difference, had it been available back when you were looking for a mud?

If such a system had existed, I’d most definitely have used it. Given my present financial situation, I would have been looking for muds where money had no impact on the gameplay. If and when my financial situation changes in the future, that might change. I am not against paying for a good product, so for instance a monthly or one time fee would be perfectly fine, provided I had the money.

Originally Posted by KaVir Or as some have suggested, would you have found it even more misleading to see a mud listed as "no payments/donations accepted" when in fact it's possible that some players might be selling equipment behind the mud owner's back?

Are you kidding? What has that got to do with things? Only morons would pay real money to people they don’t know anything about for virtual equipment. To me that sounds like a certain way to get ripped off. At least if you buy the stuff from the Admin, you would be sure that they delivered. If I wanted to buy stuff, that’s the kind of mud I’d look for in that search engine.

Originally Posted by shasarak We've had quite a large number of non-admins post to this thread, now, all of whom have been in favour of expanding to a 4- or 5-option system, with the exception of Emil who has yet to express an opinion but clearly has significant issues with MUDs that advertise themselves as free but aren't.

I prefer the 4(5) box system, and I just voted on the other thread to say so.

Originally Posted by the_logos It's right there on the front page. *shrug*

It’s right there on the front page, but hidden under a link that to most potential players implies content that is uninteresting to them. *shrug*

You obviously want the info about your perks system to be easily available, once the players know about it, otherwise you would not sell many credits. You also obviously do not want new players to know about it too soon, probably in the hope of getting them hooked on the game before they realise that money playas big role there. It’s a bit along the same lines as that pretty client you’ve got, that for a time suggests that there will be pretty pictures in the game itself too.

I call it misleading.

[Atyreus]

Originally Posted by Newworlds [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play. Already this is a bad model as it groups donations with payment. You can't require a donation for a service. If so, it is no longer a donation.

That's easily remedied. Rename the option "Payment required to play." A mandatory "donation" is, after all, more properly a subscription/registration fee. This is just an issue of wording, it's not a flaw in the intended scheme of categorization.

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to access some content. What does this mean. Some content? What content? You mean I'd check this if you can't access the forums without donation? What about registration? Again hard to define. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game. This is odd as well. What results? Who would check this box? What do we define as a result? And what do we define as a payment or donation? This is the crux of the argument.

That was the whole point of the text box that was to accompany these options. The options break down the range of payment schemes into several well-defined categories and the text box is used to further elaborate on a mud's particular business/donation model. In-game results are pretty easy to define (and have been pretty well defined elsewhere in this thread).

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game. Anyone could check this box if they interpret this the way they wish. Who could say they really have zero results in a game when a player donates $2000.00. Be serious. Again the argument about what is a result has been gone over numerous times to no avail.

This is a statement of mud policy. I, personally, would generally assume that someone who donates $2000 to such a mud would likely, even if only unconsciously, receive some favorable treatment from the administrators, unless they are just really flush with cash already. For people who only care whether or not money changes hands in some form, this method works just as well as the two option method. For people who wish to distinguish between games which accept cash but claim not to reward it versus games which require money to play or provide perks in exchange for payments, this system has a tremendous advantage over the two option method which is completely worthless for making such a distinction.

[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted. This is the endall be all. Again the reason I'm for the 2 box system. Either you have some form of payment in your game or you do not. Very simple. Very direct. No grey areas to mess with.

Which is fine if that is all you care about. Those supporting the four/five method system are suggesting that at least some players would like to know a bit more than just whether or not the game will accept donations/payments. This is a reasonable assumption that pretty much anyone who has ever handled money should be able to accept. The very first question most players will probably have when being told that a mud accepts donations/payments, is whether or not a payment is actually required to play. People are funny about money like that.

I have yet to see anyone actually pick out a mud in the TMS database that wouldn't fit nicely into one of the four categories in the four-option method. Instead of presenting bogus arguments about the supposed flaws in this method, why don't you provide some concrete examples of where the system would actually break down?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Atyreus That's easily remedied. Rename the option "Payment required to play." A mandatory "donation" is, after all, more properly a subscription/registration fee. This is just an issue of wording, it's not a flaw in the intended scheme of categorization.

The problem is it's that exact wording ("donations" rather than "payment") that some muds use to try and make themselves appear more "free". You make a "donation" of $50, and they give you the magic amulet of superpower - and they'll argue until they're blue in the face that's it a "donation", not a "payment"; they're only giving you that amulet as a thank-you for your generous donation. Honest.

I really don't want to see some mud come along and say "We delete all player files after one month, except those who generously donate $50 - but those are donations not payments, so we don't need to select the 'payment required' option". If you don't believe it'll happen, just look at how many people in this thread alone are deliberately misinterpreting the wording of the 4/5 options.



Also note the option:

Payment and/or donations required to access some content.

Was obviously intended to be:

Payment and/or donations required to access some in-game content.

[Zhiroc]

Originally Posted by the_logos It's right there on the front page.

I personally never felt that the fact that credits were sold was obfuscated (just other aspects).

But looking at the page, I think I can see why. The sidebar goes:

Main
Game
Arts & Literature
World
Organizations
Community
Help

News
Credits
Corporate

In this context (being below the main links), I can see people assuming that the Credits link means attributing writers, builders, etc and not payment features, if they are new to such things.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by KaVir I really don't want to see some mud come along and say "We delete all player files after one month, except those who generously donate $50 - but those are donations not payments, so we don't need to select the 'payment required' option". If you don't believe it'll happen, just look at how many people in this thread alone are deliberately misinterpreting the wording of the 4/5 options.

The reality is, you will see this happen and happen often. Already this thread is filled with misinterpretation and innuendo. The fact that we can't even define what is free after 500 posts is a clear example of that. If we can't define what is free, collectively, how are you going to define what "has results in game" or "what content is accessable" which is why the two box system is more direct and exact.

I think the reason most will choose against the two box is that most do not want to accept that payment/donation/perks/coffemug purchase is all the same thing. Either you are free or you are not. Very simple.

Donations or buying of product on a game whether you give "premade perks" or not will always affect how the administration deals with its client base. If you would check this box: [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game, and disagree with this and claim that your game NEVER gives any credence to donations whatsoever please speak up.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Atyreus That was the whole point of the text box that was to accompany these options. The options break down the range of payment schemes into several well-defined categories and the text box is used to further elaborate on a mud's particular business/donation model. In-game results are pretty easy to define (and have been pretty well defined elsewhere in this thread).

As far as I know the text box was removed as a possible addition. I think this was where I wanted to go to a two check box system with options if you checked payment that would break down what type.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Newworlds As far as I know the text box was removed as a possible addition. I think this was where I wanted to go to a two check box system with options if you checked payment that would break down what type.

Who said the Text box was removed?
I've always assumed that it would be a necessary addition, for the Mudowners to specify their system, and I don't remember seeing anywhere in the thread that it was disposed of.

I don't fancy wading through 17 pages of circular reasoning again, so please provide a link to where removal of the textbox was stated.

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Molly Who said the Text box was removed? I've always assumed that it would be a necessary addition, for the Mudowners to specify their system, and I don't remember seeing anywhere in the thread that it was disposed of. I don't fancy wading through 17 pages of circular reasoning again, so please provide a link to where removal of the textbox was stated.

Come on Molly, you aren't going to make me weed through again are you? I had my share of weeding back when I had to search for "players" that posted. I say it's your turn .

I will just say that I remember something about the text box being too difficult to include and that Admins could just rely on their descriptive on their info page to deal with how the payment was utilized. I'll give 10 game points to anyone who can find this! (Small print: Usable only on NW and to gain you levels but you must consider such gamepoints as usable anywhere and not part of a result in game).

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Newworlds Come on Molly, you aren't going to make me weed through again are you? I had my share of weeding back when I had to search for "players" that posted. I say it's your turn .

You're the one that made that statement, not me.

Until I'm presented with some solid evidence to the contrary, I'll just assume that the textbox stays as additional feature to the search option.

And as for 'had to' - Who forced you?

[Atyreus]

Originally Posted by Newworlds As far as I know the text box was removed as a possible addition. I think this was where I wanted to go to a two check box system with options if you checked payment that would break down what type.

When did this happen? In post #360 (yes, I actually waded through pages of back-and-forth about RMT, sock puppets, and poser v. poseur, to find this), Lasher wrote:

I'm still leaning towards the 4 options with a text area for elaboration.

Every post since then that has actually described the systems under consideration has assumed that the text box was still a part of the deal. Maybe it was retracted in there somewhere, but I can't find it.

[Atyreus]

Originally Posted by KaVir The problem is it's that exact wording ("donations" rather than "payment") that some muds use to try and make themselves appear more "free". You make a "donation" of $50, and they give you the magic amulet of superpower - and they'll argue until they're blue in the face that's it a "donation", not a "payment"; they're only giving you that amulet as a thank-you for your generous donation. Honest.

This would fall under the "Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game" category. I was only suggesting removing the word "donations" from the "Payment and/or donations required to play." In all honesty it makes no difference to me. But, as a donation is, by definition, a gift, there is something a bit oxymoronic about a mandatory donation.

I really don't want to see some mud come along and say "We delete all player files after one month, except those who generously donate $50 - but those are donations not payments, so we don't need to select the 'payment required' option". If you don't believe it'll happen, just look at how many people in this thread alone are deliberately misinterpreting the wording of the 4/5 options.

Well, even under the current wording ("Payment and/or donations required to play"), this hypothetical mud admin wishing to game the system would still try to game the system by saying "Money isn't required to play, it's just required for the in-game benefit of keeping your character."

I mean, if we want to try to set up a system that is absolutely game-proof, the system proposed by Threshold is probably better suited. Even better, we could provide only one choice ("Money may or may not be accepted by the game administrators and it may or may not have an effect on your playing experience") or drop the field altogether. It seems what we are really aiming for, though, is to maximize the amount of information available with a system that is fairly straight-forward and which neatly categorizes any possible business/donation model.