Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

The term for what you mean now is "sock puppet".

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

The image that projects is hilarious. ROFL

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

The difference is that behavior that is contrary to the roleplaying mandatory policy is verifiable by simply playing the game. By definition, in fact. If you see someone talking about Simpsons in a roleplaying mandatory game, you can be positive that roleplaying mandatory is a policy and that the reality does not match up to the policy.

Selling gear takes place out of the game, however, not in it. In-game, A giving B an item looks the same pretty much regardless of the transaction that took place out of game to a player.

RMT = trade between players, not first party sales from the admin. Players typically don't provide each other with receipts when trading stuff between themselves.

If you're talking about first-party sales from admins, then you can produce a receipt if and only if the admin in question chooses to provide one. If he doesn't, it's not verifiable. Heck, I run successful commercial MUDs and you don't even get a receipt if you mail us cash, check, or a money order (though you do via credit card or various other online purchase methods).

In other words, the only way it's verifiable is if the admin-seller chooses to make it so. There is literally no feasible way to verify that it happened otherwise. Contrast that with your roleplay example, where by definition violations of the policy are detectable in-game.

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

1. There are 10s of millions of text/graphical MUD players in the world. To claim that a handful of people expressing an opinion on a tiny forum equates to the general opinion of all MUD players is somewhat absurd. TMS forum users are in no way representative of the MUD population at large.

2. I'm not trying to prevent anything from being able to perform such a search, nor am I capable of doing so. Currently, the non-existence of a way to perform such a search is preventing them from performing it and I am quite certain that I'm not responsible for implementing development priorities or development itself on TMS. If you feel that a discussion about the pitfalls involved with a particular course of action is counter-productive because it may give Lasher (who IS responsible for what is implemented on TMS) more than one point of view rather than only yours, that is, with all due respect, not a complaint I can take seriously.

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

Hey hey now. I appreciate that we are somewhat in agreement on this issue but please don't malign posters just because their post count is low. How long someone has been a forum member or how many posts they've made doesn't have any bearing on the quality of their reasoning or opinions.

(Sorry, pet peeve of mine. I often hear people hear dismiss new posters in this way on this forum and others, and I don't think it's cool.)

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

I will agree with you in principle, but not in practice on this issue. The reason I will disagree is that the people I'm referring to (and I'll research and discount my own claim if I'm wrong) logged on ONLY for this post and strangely in the middle of the discussion oddly supporting one side. I'll find the posts and again apologize if I'm wrong.

The Cold Hard Facts
 

After researching as I stated I would in my previous post, here are the facts:

So there you have it. Some research and the reason I posted what I did, Logos. I think it also shows a tremendous lack (as I stated in a post #450) of player concern but mostly Admin's arguing with eachother about the meaning of Free.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

So, of those, only one really seems to match your possible "sock puppet" profile. Out of seven. Talk about making a lot out of nothing ;)

I think you could have found more productive ways to spend your time.

Overall, I think the general consensus favors having the information and letting the customer beware (and check it out for themselves).

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Gore is an admin on Batmud btw.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Look again. Posters 3 and 6 (2 out of 7) fit the category. And, my research also proved my earlier point. That is: The players don't have a definitive issue with this as shown by the other 5 out of 7. We the Admins do.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Really not. I think anyone can see that everyone concerned about the meaning of "free" decided early on that the word itself was useless as a yes/no category, and knowing anything useful about the "freeness" of a game required some finer gradation of meaning.

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.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Great. So what? Doesn't change whether it's a good idea. The voice from the players who have spoken up has been consistently "yeah, I'd like to be able to know that" -- and why wouldn't it be? Any fool can see that this is information that's important to people looking for games, period.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I'm not sure I buy the logic of your argument based on the tiny sampling of MUD players we've got communicating so far in this thread. My educated guess would be that there are lots of players with issues about this kind of thing if they see a MUD advertised as free, start playing, and then get hit with gotchas like "It's free, but you can't play past Level 10 unless you pay." In which case, maybe they gripe on channels. Or maybe they vent on the game's forums before quitting. And maybe, just maybe, they'd complain somewhere like TMS or TMC.

However, my bet is that most would just move on and find something different (or, worse, give up on MUDs entirely because they're worried about getting ripped off).

So, I'd suggest we've got a silent majority around out there somewhere in the community that hasn't been heard. For that reason, I support the text box/check approach to categorizing. More information isn't bad.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

That's a bit much. Come on CP, they, like anyone posting here, are just protecting the right to description and definition of what works for them.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

This same argument was shot down when given by one of the Commercial Muds (I think Threshold), as using the posts here as a "tiny sampling" to make a major decision and change for the Admins.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

How about we stick to responding to arguments rather than throwing around ad hominem? If you're not interested in believing that there are multiple legitimate sides to an argument, that's your business, but there's no reason to start attacking people because of it.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

That's what's disgusting: protecting at all costs what's convenient for oneself and sacrificing accuracy of description and definition, not to mention one's own intellectual integrity, to do it.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Gosh; funny how you don't call ad hominem on people saying "this is all just anti-commercial admins making trouble because they hate commercial games!"

Not impressed.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

If any of this were true, Runescape (who has free servers and member servers, with the former having severely restricted content) wouldn't have 7 million players and a million customers. There are a number of other MUDs with million+ users that use the same terminology.

Fact is, using free like this is absolutely standard in the online games world. Consumers at large pretty clearly have no problem with it judging by the overwhelming success of the model. It seems to only be confusing to a few people here, and I'm quite sure it's not actually confusing to them.

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

Don't make me mod you n00bs. Pheer teh delhammer!

Seriously though, keep it civil and on topic please. This discussion is heading downhill rapidly. I don't want to have to start deleting posts but if it comes to it I will, regardless of the flaming I get for doing it ;)

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to every post I might have an issue with. My apologies. I'm pretty busy.

The point remains: Let's discuss the arguments, not the people, ok? I don't feel that's a radical suggestion and it's also in line with the guidelines for posting behavior on TMS.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I'm not questioning the validity of using the term "Free" in your game advertising and then having it clearly posted somewhere that you can get extras for spending money. I'm not in the all-commercial is evil camp, having dabbled in the commercial side myself. But I do question the validity of using what's valid for paid advertising/marketing purposes to justify quashing useful information in a freebie MUD index.

I support the idea of having the information available for players *and* letting MUD admins claim whatever they want in their advertising.

Your MUD puts hair on adolescent chests? Awesome!

Your MUD gets you fast cars and faster women? Sweet.

Your MUD makes Chuck Norris cry? OMG that's amazing!

Slap all that in the advertising, but provide the facts in the database so people can make their choices.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Ahh, if only it were that simple I doubt there'd be any argument.

Which facts, exactly? Nobody is proposing to include all of the facts about a MUD or, more specifically, about the manner in which a MUD takes money.

I brought up an example earlier in which one could categorize every country into those that:
1. Allow their citizens to vote.
2. Don't allow their citizens to vote.

Are these "the facts"? Is the relevant reality from the perspective of the user-citizen contained within those choices? Certainly not, regardless of the fact that all countries can be categorized in one of those two categories.

(Country A might only define white males as a citizen but allow them to vote. Country B might grant all adults residing in the country the right to vote but only provide a single candidate to vote for, etc. )

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

omg weak.

Yeah. It's hard not to talk about people's behavior when it personally, greatly distresses me. You might remember that I'm also not any kind of anti-commercial-MUD activist; rather, I started from a point of having some respect and admiration for people who were successful at creating commercial MUDs, and hoped to one day join their ranks. No bitterness like that of the disillusioned.

Oh, well. Arguments, you say? Very well. You're correct that we can't tell if a MUD whose policy is no-money-accepted might have players doing real-money trading on it. I find that this is acceptable and does not interfere with the utility of the multiple-choice models being described. Accurately describing official policy suffices.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Dabbled? Don't you work for a company making commercial MUDs (or MMOs or whatever you want to call them)?

If TMS is "free" (I assume that's what you meant by freebie) even though enhanced privileges are available to those who pay for them (the ability to run ads), then surely a MUD is as well?

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

The Defence of New Posters would like to submit the following evidence for consideration:

Of the 36 participants in this thread (including me), only two have the same IP address and they aren't any of the ones you mentioned.

The defence rests :p

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Lots of people's behavior here distresses me greatly. So what? We're here for a discussion, not to vent out our personal frustrations.



So then it's acceptable for a MUD to accept money as long as it's stated official policy is that it doesn't?

If it's mere policy we're interested in then there's really no point in having this discussion, since anyone can say anything they wish is their official policy if they don't mind being deceitful about it. And, in this hypothetical there's no way to call them on it since official policy, not reality, is what apparently matters.

My prediction: There'd be a lot of outrage about it. Why? Because what's useful to people is reality, not wishful thinking.

--matt

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

Just a point: That doesn't prove or disprove anything. I know if I choose to post under a different identity, all you'll see is a user from an IP that's totally unrelated to my own, perhaps from New York (I live in the Bay Area), or Singapore, or Brisbane, etc.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Yep. I don't *run* the company or the MMO, however. I was referring to my own MUSHes. I don't really count my MMO day job, though, because graphical MMOs (aside from gold sellers) don't seem to be populating TMS or TMC with game listings. So, unless specified otherwise, my references in TMS are to my experiences with text-based games.

If TMS were to go to a site for listing MUD sites, I'd expect Lasher to indicate that it's free to list, but that you get perks for advertising with TMS. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Nod, fair enough, but I brought up Runescape specifically because it is listed on TMS (and has more users than every other MUD listed here put together I think).

And, speaking as a long-time subscriber of Runescape, I can't say I ever felt deceived or ripped off by it.
--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Not for nothing, but a visit to - my first ever - shows the benefits of membership, with $ indicating payment - right out there where everyone can see it.

If they're cool showing it out front on their website, they should be cool specifying in a MUD listing that they accept money. I don't think they're ripping anyone off or being deceptive at all.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

No, neither do I. :)

So can you give us an example of a MUD that you think is being deceptive?

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Yeah. Okay. I suppose, then, the metric should be the observable behavior of the MUD admins, with official policy being the first-blush validation of this. If their actual behavior should contradict their stated policy, people can do the usual outrage and pillorying, and Lasher can change their status if he finds the evidence presented amid the outrage and pillorying to be compelling. Or Lasher can choose to keep out of it, and people can do their outrage and pillorying in reviews. How's that work for you?

Re: What does "Free" Mean?
 

Yeah I meant to mention that but somebody distracted me so I didn't quite finish the post ;)

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Hello people. That is why I stated that we are wasting our time with this argument and should allow Lasher to get on to better things like re-implimenting the player reviews. All of this can be taken in a review.

As for this statement. Logos said it succinctly and if you didn't get his response, read Proxy Server, AOL, et al.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Nope, for the simple fact that I haven't been out hunting for them and I've really never made it my business to police the parsing of game advertising. Beyond that, in my opinion, this thread shouldn't even be about pointing fingers at specific MUDs and making accusations. It's about whether (and how) to quantify some of this extra information about all MUDs, and I favor it.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

No, that's not the point I'm making. In the post of yours that I originally responded to regarding this issue, you stated "I'm saying that we should comment on reality, not the wishful thinking that admin policy often represents."

And what I'm saying is that a mud listing itself as "roleplaying mandatory" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about the Simpsons, just as a mud listing itself as "G rated" can be proven inaccurate by logging on to it and talking about adult-oriented subject matter.

In other words, if you really believe that the listings shouldn't reflect admin policy, then by the same line of reasoning muds shouldn't be allowed to list themselves as "roleplaying mandatory", "G rated", "Category: Medieval Fantasy", etc. Because, just like the case of players selling items in secret, none of these things can actually be prevented.

Yes, you can ban someone you catch talking about the Simpsons, or having mudsex - but only if you catch them, and only after the fact. There's no way to ensure that someone else won't have mudsex in front of a newbie next week, and banning them afterwards won't change the fact that they were exposed to adult-oriented material.

Ah, my mistake. But if we're talking specifically about players, then it goes back to the points I made above. If Lasher agrees that basing the listings on mud policies is acceptable, then it's fine to simply ignore transactions that are outside of the muds control. If he doesn't, then obviously the whole listing system will need an overhaul.

If it's an online sale, there'll be records - paypal, credit card, whatever. It's true that a player driving/flying to visit the mud owner with a suitcase full of unmarked bank notes wouldn't leave a trail, but I think we could overlook the possibility of such transactions without overly damaging the reliability of the listings.



Lasher created this thread, and he's more than capable of closing it if he feels it's no longer beneficial. Likewise it's up to Lasher, not you, to decide what the TMS priorities are, and which things are worth implementing.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

He also said some things that relate to the fact that accusing people who disagree with you of being sock puppets is a very common, very poor argumentation tactic out in the wilds of teh intarwebs.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

If I did that, I'd accuse half the posters here. Please, CP, keep it in context. I showed proof of the posers and proof that this was an Admin argument not a player argument. I see nothing that shows otherwise.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

How about reading the posts and you will see I never said I'm dictating anything.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I am no ones "sock puppet"

As for the topic of this thread, I still maintain that "Free" means free, as in - "Without cost. With no incumbrance."

Tricky

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

You showed what? I didn't notice your laundry list proving anything. Who exactly did you prove to be a "poser"?

(Wow, it's just like hanging out with skaters. Except some of them actually know that the word they're using is "poseur". Try dictionary.com.)

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I'm not a player. And given I've been a (mostly lurking) member here since 2003 without ever once having somebody's arm shoved up my fundament, I'm pretty sure I'm not a sock puppet.

I'm also pretty sure I haven't made comments on both sides, at least not in this thread (which two sides are we talking about anyways?). I prefer the four-option method over the current two-option method and over the similarly useless two-option method that's been proposed in this thread or the two-option-but-is-really-a-nine-or-ten-fuzzy-overlapping-options method. I'm not even particularly fond of the five-option method, though that is largely because the current wording for it somewhat collapses the neat and distinct categories of the four-option method.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Poser dude, as in "poser: a person who poses." Like, duh?

As for what did I prove? Um, try reading what I posted. I can't be giving multiple explanations to you if you don't read. But I proved that it is MOSTLY ADMINS not PLAYERS that care about this thread. As for posers, sheesh, guess I have to quote myself. I stated numbers 3 and 6 they are:

Quick, send them a PM, maybe they'll rush here and deny it!

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

So because I am not an avid poster here, I am discredited.

The reason I do not post here was stated in my posts. The general attitude of the majority of users here is very hostile. I try to stay away from time bombs.

Believe what you will, no skin off my back. Though, I am logged in fairly often just reading, I didn't just log on twice and only to post here. I just do not post.

Prime example of why I do not post here and probably will not post here again.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

No sir, one person with no higher or lower standing here than yourself suggesting that a person's post count might be related to how much we should listen to them is a far cry from discredited. Your post was read and your opinion noted, they all were.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

I didn't mean to insinuate that I had been discredited by the administration, my reply was directed to Newworlds. I made my post in haste being, truthfully, offended by the accusation and failed to quote him or her. My apologies.

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

That's the problem though. This behavior isn't inherently observable. There is no evidence to be had of an admin wishes to ensure there is none.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Nod, I understand that. Both of those are, by their very definition, observable within the MUD.

An admin selling something to a player is inherently not observable unless the admin wishes to make it so.

It's not really about whether it can be prevented so much as it is about what is actually fundamentally verifiable. In the one case (roleplaying mandatory/g-rated) we're talking about something that happens within the MUD. In the other case, we're talking about something that happens outside the MUD. When someone sells an item to another player for real money (whether admin or player), this is something that happens outside the MUD. The transfer of the actual item happens inside the MUD, but that action is 100% indistinguishable in and of itself from a "legitimate" in-game purchase. (It's the context around it that can help operators catch some RMT transactors.)

Indeed, but one can actually catch it. One can't catch RMT unless one of the parties is sloppy, because the "violation" happens outside of the game.

Sure, if Lasher agrees with anything re:TMS it's fine.

Ignoring transactions outside of the muds control is like writing a guidebook that leads tourists to believe there are no pickpockets in New York because it's against the law there though.

Cash or money order transactions leave no trail that is verifiable by TMS. We receive thousands of dollars of payments in cash/money orders each month, so I don't think it's really accurate to dismiss those methods as difficult. You don't need to drive or fly. You just need to stick an envelope in your mailbox. Darn easy to do.

--matt

Re: The Cold Hard Facts
 

Sure it can be. If it is inaccurate information, it is bad. If the information is provided solely for the benefit of a select few, it is bad. If it will create more flamewars and arguments on these forums, it is bad. If Lasher gives into 3-4 admins and makes this change, it is bad. When you reward a certain behavior, you can expect such behavior to continue. It won't be long until those same 3-4 admins are creating a new flamewar to change something else on TMS to their personal benefit.

Nobody is against this because they are against information being made available to players. On Threshold, a player cannot even create a character without having every aspect of our payment system(s) explained in detail. So we don't hide anything from anyone. When we required payment to play, we labeled ourselves pay to play here on TMS. We have since dropped that requirement.

The problem is that the options as proposed are designed to benefit a specific type of mud at the expense of all others. Specifically, muds that sell merchandise are trying to continue to call themselves free when they are no more free than muds that sell anything else.

Also, the idea of "rewarded in game" or "not rewarded in game" is a complete farce. When players buy something from a mud, or "donate" to the mud, most of them will expect something in return. Whether it is a material reward or just greater access to the admins, they are going to expect it. And the reality is, they will almost always get it. So trying to differentiate between whether or not a payment is rewarded in game or not is just an outrageous and bogus differentiation. People can stomp and fume as much as they want that they "never give such people any advantage!!!!!!!!", but I just don't believe it and I never will. I also think it is incredibly naive to make such a claim, and even more naive to believe it.

The fact that the real motive behind this is a handful of MUD admins trying to gain competitive advantage is what motivated me to contribute to this thread from the beginning.

I have been in full support of the two options that are actually verifiable and truthful.

Does your game take money (in any form) or not?

That is ultimately the main issue that players care about.