Nor should they need to, if they have good hiring policies. But Matt's point is simply that the standards are there to protect the integrity of the MUD in those rare instances where it's necessary. As always, when the option is available, it's preferable to be safe than sorry, and accurate records of staff behavior can absolutely provide the necessary means by which to keep your staff honest, and punish them without controversy otherwise.

Actually, I can see a point in randomly reviewing staff logs pro-actively if you're big enough and if your staff members don't really have a personal relationship with you. I suspect you wouldn't start running into situations that justify that kind of pro-active enforcement until you have quite a few more users than, say, Achaea has (say, 5-10x as many).

This is no different from a company reviewing the email and website visit employees make from work. Rarely (ever?) will a company actually check everything every employee does, but if you know you MIGHT be checked, that's often good enough to discourage naughty behavior. Same principle airports use with flagging only one out of every X traveler for extra searching.

--matt

Summary:

Logs = good.
Random checks on unreliable staff members = good.
Checking all logs = impossible.
Outlawing all communication between staff and players = bad.

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement here, actually.

Agreed.

Re: Angie's comments:

Completely agreed.  We let staff members know up front that if it's important, it's getting logged in a bigass file somewhere, only accessible to the owners.  I certainly have better things to do than idly peruse all the stuff we log, but it's invaluable in evaluating staff and handling complaints.

Well, yes, duh. As Spazmatic pointed out, we were not really in any disagreement, except with whoever started this part of the discussion by suggesting admins should monitor all off-channel communication between players and the staff.

Well, to get back to the original post (even though it was ressurected), here's what has driven me off MU*s in my latest round of searching for a single place to play. (Disclaimers - I play only RP-enforced MU*s.)

- Nonsensical RP, as in all PCs you meet are exquisitly beautiful elf maidens spilling out of the tops of their bodices who call everone "m'lord" and "m'lady" while firing off superspells and crying and pouting about their lovelife.

- Established players forcing spellups or "coin-ups" on new players.

- Time too fast - 10:1 MU*:real time ratio with hunger and thirst code firing and taking HP/CON after only 15 minutes of real time.

- Players who don't seem to recognize pose/emote as part of character interaction or who themselves use it to bypass code.

The third of those things is arguable - admins may have good reason for implementing code in that way. The others, though, indicate to me that admins and top players are failing to direct the world toward consistency or, worse, have no clear conception of the gameworld. Lack of consistency kills RP MU*s. Why bother with character development - challenge, striving, failure - if everything is wish-fulfilliment?

Oh, yeah, and candy-colored MU*s with lots of channel spam. But that's something that very appropriate some places and probably even adds to the enjoyment of some. Having briefly played what I'd guess is one of the largest HnS MU*s, I can see that all the colors and activity whizzing by is part of the experience. Probably quite a hoot for those who like it.

Mmhmm. I don't much like color schemes. However, intelligent but gaudy color does seem to add to the "excitement" of many muds. I would say, though, that unintelligent AND gaudy color definitely turns off almost all players (with a few notable exceptions who I think may be color blind).

Some people have strong opinions. Some of them are vocal about it. Some of them also insist on having discussions with evidence thrown back and forth, aparently because it improves everyone involved.

So, perhaps a more appropriate litmus test would be, do the people in question accept the opinions of others as valuable, even if they are very vocal about their own? That, it would seem, is the hallmark of a rational man or woman.

Yes. I wax philosophic today.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Jumping in kind of late in the thread, but sometimes you just want an outlet for frustration...

1. Unprofessional Staff.
This means different things to different people, but to me, it's staff that can be demonstrably found in chronic violation of their own rules. The idea here being that the first line you read when logging in is an outright lie, you have a fair idea of what you're in for. I don't think anyone suggests that player-staff communication is bad, but when you have authorized channels of communication, email, forums, IC bulletins, or whatever, the notion that some players receive private communications is a red light. Moreso when you delve a little deeper.

2. Discourteous or Untrustworthy Staff
See above. Mature gamers expect mature admins. In games that do not expect to ever make a dime, there will be a community standard, and a newer player will of course have to lay low, sense out the nature of a particular community, and fit in. If the MUD expects to be paid for its service, my preference is for service providers to have a higher standard of politeness, such as can be measured by any real-world professional service provider. If your admins are ruder than a New York hooker, you've lost my business, and the business of anyone I tell about my experience.
If you're seeing this behavior: rudeness, dishonesty, clear favorites, name-calling, incessant spamming for topmudsites votes, overt censorship of negative reviews, all from the owner of the company on down, coupled with dwindling staff and playerbase, "Here's Yer Sign."

3. Favoritism
In all MUDs, it exists. Admins are human. If a character's or player's antics tickle a funny bone, the response is favorable. Likewise in the reverse. It happens, and in professionally run games, it usually sees a balance pretty quickly. When it's systemic, and clear-cut, and whistleblowers get targeted, you can almost hear the toilet flushing on my cred-o-meter.

4. Typos
AMEN! It's a literary medium. If you can't spell G.E.D. properly, there are lots of graphics games out there.

5. Sphincter Police on Roleplay
Disclaimer: I whole-heartedly believe in roleplay immersion. I believe in reading the history and lore docs, adhering to them, and getting into character (and staying there). I figure it's owed to the environment to be part of the environment established by a lot of hard-working writers. I don't believe it's owed to the environment to endure self-appointed elitist micro-critiquers who wish to 'RP-enforce' their interpretation of roleplay on others. At times, I've noticed that many of these RP stormtroopers are some of the worst offenders of OOCisms. It just engenders that cringe reflex to immersion.

6. Realism Over Gameplay
This point is pretty subjective, as most players have some sliding scale on how much immersion they want, versus how smoothly they wish their character's life to unfold, or their avatar to advance. If I'm mashing the enter key repeatedly, hundreds of times in a day, so that my Uber-teef can get enough reps for that precious additional skill rank, the game becomes a part-time job. This topic becomes even more unappealing when one finds such regimented realism in direct odds with some highly unrealistic results, scenarios, or plots.

Those are my top six, and it's not hard to guess, I'm looking for a decent roleplaying game. Or several. There are perhaps five or six others with me who are doing more than looking for a game that ISN'T like the abovementioned.

We like our Swords & Sorcery. We like our RP enforced. We like a live and let live atmosphere with staff and players. We also have no objection putting in some behind-the-scenes work to help out a developing game.

Suggestions?

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

LOL. Now that was a good title for one of your peeves.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

This is easily one of the best threads I have read on topmudsites, great idea. A gold mine of information for new admin on what not to do.

Vladaar

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I woudn't play a mud that advertised itself as one thing, according to its own administrator's definition of that thing was, if the administrator didn't bother to check to make sure that the industry didn't already have an accepted "customary" definition of that thing.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I'm pretty easygoing for the most part and will try nearly any game regardless of a few pet peeves, since no game is perfect. I think the only times I've left very quickly without giving the game further testing is with poor staff interactions. Here's a few examples:

One game had a long newbie intro that I finally got through, only to be told that my character's name was out of genre by an invisi-staff (this was a fantasy game, the name was Crysiant, which is an ancient welsh name. Can't see the conflict.) I looked in the game policy to find out how to question the procedure, and was confronted with the policy of "You can't ever ask staff about anything, ever, there is no system or place or method by which you can even ask them about bugs." Can you say arbitrary and unchecked power? Byeeeee.

Another game looked very promising until I logged in for the first time. A character started whispering obscene things to me, and I responded with "Why are you doing this?" (having no idea how to use the communication alternatives yet), and the staff member present told me I was disruptive and banned me even though I explained that the person was harrassing me and I couldn't respond to them. I've never even TRIED to go back there.

In another game I sat in the newbie area (which was encouraged, to get used to things before the food and drink needs kicked in) and listened to a lot of OOC folks chatting. A staff member of the game sat there and TOLD me all the problems of the game. Now I understand that people can get bitter, staff and players, and that everyone has peeves about their game, but to sit there and tell newbies this in a casual fashion is just wild. Turned me right off.

When I look back at all the games I've tried, these are the only kinds of things that have made me leave immediately, though I have to admit I do not even try games that say they don't at least heavily encourage roleplay so I count those out.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

The one thing that will make me flee a mud is the colour.

If upon logging in you are assaulted with colour (or even during character creation) and there is no obvious way (help colour, or similar) to tone it down I just leave.

If players can use arbitrary colours in public channels, SPECIALLY if they have the blinking colour code option, I leave.

I player titles can be customized to have blinking colours, I leave.

If anything blinks I leave.

Most anything else will have me sit for at least the introductory part of game-play, exploring the main town or equivalent and wandering around. I tend to play for several hours at a time, and being able to control the impact on my retine is of outmost importance to me :P

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I don't remember where I first heard it, but it came hand-in-hand with a Midwestern cliche:
"So tight-a**ed they could eat coal, and crap diamonds."

But, to keep it on topic:

7. Banquet-Length Plots/Quests with Salad Substance.
"Epic" means more than "long". I'll admit, I've been spoiled in the past with plots that are not utterly linear, immutable or so simplistic 'go here, insert special item, say magic phrase' will solve them. Far and away over most 'official' plots, I've found that player-driven stories are more interesting, more consistent, and less likely to turn on a whim. I've steered clear at times of official quests, simply because of number 8.

8. Plot-hounding/hoarding
No one can stop a player from thinking "Oooo! Yellow text character (Or character not on the who list)!" and dropping all pretense to make sure the latest NPC notices how groooovy their RP is, and while there are remedies to players/characters who don't try to involve others (MY PLOT! STAND BACK!), I prefer to see this borderline ooc behavior curtailed, or better still, penalized. It doesn't take very long at all for a playerbase to lose interest in quests/plots if the same plotbullies crowd the scene.

9. Sensible Races
I suppose I'd be okay with upright housepets in people-duds, if the lore really makes a compelling case for it. I'm not opposed to lifting that disbelief burden, so long as I'm not daily faced with humans, essentially, with tails and fur. In my opinion, such evolutionary developments need to make complete sense within the parameters of the lore and history.

10. Transparent Mechanics
I don't really mind if they're complicated by syntax, so long as that syntax is intuitive. Room-to-room movement should be fluid, combat should be smooth and interactive, and in a nutshell, I shouldn't be playing a guessing game on how to pick up THAT item, where THIS injury came from, or how did three type-aheads corrupt my character file? (That last is a coding weakness, admittedly, but I've had it happen. open pouch, put coins in my pouch, close pouch) should not cause catastrophic issues.


That's my top ten. I'm only really peavish when something sends my cred-o-meter square into the red zone.
Thank you to the replies I've received already, and thanks in advance for more suggestions on a good game.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

This is horrid of me, but I absolutely won't play a mud with hobbits involved.

I did play LoTRO, though, and ultimately quit because I couldn't burn down Hobbit town.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Agh! Mina brings me to point ELEVEN, in what is sure to be my never-ending tirade of Things (see topic).
David Letterman, eat your heart out, for not thinking outside the Top Ten box:

11. Transparent Denials That Your Game Is Derivative
IF you decide to include Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits/Halflings, Humans Of Dunadain Life Expectancies, Drow (dark elves), Dryder (half-spider/half-drow), or your Druid spell list titles read like a Xerox of the AD&D Player's Handbook, at the very least, acknowledge that your inspiration, 'homage', or shameless plagiarism is Tolkienesque or Gygaxian. I don't think anyone will fault you for wanting to introduce your take on these giants, and an entire genre/industry has grown up around essentially wanting to provide people with a caption of Middle Earth or Greyhawk (or some other beloved literature), with twists. But with the lates J.R.R. and E.G.G., at least nod your head when it's pointed out that changing the racename of a tart-eating, rolypoly, three-foot human with furry hard-soled feet does not de-hobbitify it. I promise, I won't go running to the Tolkien estate, and you'll have my respect for honesty.

And Mina, I played a game wherein if you didn't get the syntax just so for entering a hobbit domicile, you got a head injury. Try enough times wrongly, and it killed you from head crits. (and this was in the -shops-, and quite comically, just outside the healer's door...talk about job security for the raisers...)
So, while I don't mind playing a hobbit on occasion, in this case, you'd have to burn first, figure out syntax later. Meanwhile, my widdle hobbit would be just inside, -refusing- to munch a tart no matter how many flavors they came in, waving a headbandage you can't reach.

Having said that, I won't refuse a game just because it has <absolutelynothobbitsbecausewedon'tdeadlift> in it, but they had better taste just as good as Elves, the other white meat.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Hobbits stole my lunch money. Ankle-biting bastards!

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I don't know if it's fair of me to say I will not play a MUD because of the existance or lack of any feature. I certainly will try any MUD. Whether or not I would wish to continue playing for any length of time is another story.

However, I do tend toward RPIs for long-term, in-depth commitment. That said, I suppose the things that turn me off from a MUD would be dependant upon what type of MUD it is. A difficult-to-use combat system in a H&S is far more likely to be grevious to my feelings regarding the MUD than it would be in a role-play MUD. Likewise, a poor emote system would be far more detrimental to my enjoyment of a role-play MUD than it would be on a H&S.

The thing I find myself longing for more than anything though is a well-designed world and a staff willing to admit when they've made mistakes.

A well-designed world is a long, complicated thing to produce and far too many MUDs aren't willing to invest that sort of time and effort into their world. Making it worse, some don't have the knowledge from which to create a well-designed world. Multiple problems arise when they have only a flimsy knowledge of aspects they incorporate into their game and little or no idea how those elements would interact with other elements of the world in a manner consistent with the other elements. Making things worse, when such errors creep into world design, far too many MUDs are unwilling to acknowledge this or at best, attempt to make excuses.

Responsible MUD staff goes beyond simple enforcement of policies to include being knowledgeable, reasonable, and mature. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, but denying one's errors never endear me to a person or game. That's part of the reason I presently don't play any game and last year quit a game I'd been playing non-stop for nearly eight years. The staff had compromised their own setting and policies in the hope of attracting a larger playerbase, content that they might lose some quality players who'd been around for years in exchange for a greater number of players whose dedication and abilities were unknown. Some of the changes they made to achieve a larger playerbase resulted in behavior and abuse they hadn't intended but which they had been warned might occur. However, rather than acknowledge their mistake, they denied it and continued forward, alienating dedicated, veteran players. To me, that is unacceptable behavior from an administrator. Leadership isn't merely accepting the accolades when you do things right, it's also about accepting responsibility when you do things wrong and making every effort to fix the problem. That's a characteristic that I find lacking in the staff of many a MUD and something which instantly turns my interest away when not present.

Take care,

Jason

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

It's also a well-established fact that Hobbits are one of the leading causes of global warming.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I would totally play a mud with flying spaghetti monsters!

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Word.

It bore posting again.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

The one thing that makes me not play a MUD is inactivity. (Bear in mind I only try out roleplay MUDs.)

If I log into a MUD in the evening my time, which is usually off-peak hours, and the who list has only a couple of people or I wander about and find one or two people at the most, then I log out again.

Roleplaying with myself just does not do anything for me.

Like the rest of you, I find a lot of things extremely annoying, but to be honest, if I found a MUD that was active and had a decent amount of quality roleplay during the unpopular hours I get to play, then I would put up with a lot. Even hideous blinking colours. Maybe.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

The Catch-22 of MUDs.

If the game-play and/or content, or anything other then role-play, is decent enough not to immediately drive you as a player off then perhaps give the game a couple days. Invite others you know to try it with you. Pick a time to meet on the game. Post on the forums asking when others are around.

I have seen plenty of really good games that lacked only players. Sad, no?

But to stay on topic...
I will not play a MUD that forces me to train exactly like everyone else. I have tried MUDs where I was told (by a required PC member of a guild) "Train 2 of this, 3 of that and this."

I also do not like to be forced into some (supposedly) player-ran guild, made to read reams of information by the guild masters and have it called role-play. Esepcially when it is the only way to gain skills.

There!

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I usually do not play RPI or RP muds for that matter, unless it involves dinosaurs, where are you, "Age of Reptiles"?

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

You can find dinosaurs and unique dinosaur'like creatures on NW though I doubt you will want to.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Huge peeve:

Dinosaurs being in any game I decide to play unless it's Jurassic Park Online or maybe Turok Online. I wouldn't chose to play Jurassic Park, though.

I ranted through every dinosaur (raptors, no less) area in WoW.

NW, delete my NW character, please!

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Did and done. Our staff found that you were borging in a dinosaur area that your character couldn't have possibly roleplayed into so we had to delete you or be in fear of losing our RPI status.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

The main thing I am looking for on a MUD is an RP enforced environment. It is especially frustrating for me when a game lists itself as being RP Mandatory or Enforced and I don't see any evidence of roleplaying in early game play.

I admit to not giving most MUDs a lot of my time initially unless they come with very high recommendations from people I trust. For this reason I don't like games that have newbie areas that isolate me from the bulk of the players right away or force me to go through a long tutorial before I start. I also don't like being forced to read a ton of documentation before I start a game.

If a game has some sort of pre-approval system of either names or character concepts and they don't approve very quickly (within an hour) then it is unlikely I will come back to check out the MUD. If I'm in the mood to try out a new MUD I typically want to do so immediately.

I also like seeing some sort of OOC newbie help system or channel. I'll take time to go through documentation to figure things out, but if I can't find it in my searching then I like having help readily available.

With all this being said, if I jump right into a MUD and like what I see then I am the type of player that will spend hours reading all the back documents, rules, and so on. I will also then spend a lot of time researching the game world and coming up with a detailed history and character concept.

There are a lot of other things that I prefer from MUDs and could go into that list here, but since I have tried many MUDs and they often lose me within the first hours of game play I have focused on the reasons above.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

12. Un-games.
Unwritten.
Uncoded.
Unprofessional.
Understaffed.
Underpopulated.
Unending 'beta'.
Unimaginative.


Unforgivable.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

13. Racist, sexist or homophobic remarks by staff. Player-bashing is one thing, but demographic-bashing is just so low-class it beggars outrage.

I'm surprised I forgot this, but in a long list of things I experienced at my last MUD, it fell through the cracks. I noticed that one or two of them were edited from public logs posted on their forums, but that they were said at all, posted for a minute, and edited without an apology some weeks after they were made is utterly inexcusable. There is no place in the world, much less a game, whether it's in staff chat, global channels, public player meetings or public forums on the internet, for this sort of backwards ignorance.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Pay to play or pay for perks muds or whatever. Those are ridiculous in my opinion. Also any mud that tries to make money off the mudding community in general leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I've also got personal feeling about that and feel muds started as free games they should stay that way. I'm also against capitalism and commercialization though so go figure.

Also any mud that disillusionist plays.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

And yet here you are on a for-profit site, generating pageviews that TMS sells to advertisers, a number of which are commercial MUD operators.

I'll bet the computer parts you're using come from a capitalist enterprise as well (they definitely do, in fact, as there are no non-capitalist manufacturers of CPUs).

Why let a bit of hypocrisy stop you though, right? Acting consistently with one's beliefs requires commitment and might require you to actually give things up that were produced by the capitalists you profess to dislike.

--matt

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Imagine my unending dismay. If I post a list, will you stay away? That seems mutually beneficial.

[Edited to add]: since there is only one MUD I -won't- play, shall I give you its name? You'd fit right in.

It makes me curious about such ridiculous stances as 'anyone who tries to make money off the mudding community'. By what freak of nature or economics are mudding players exempt from paying for something, or that people who build something that costs them money charging others for it?

Ah, if only the entire world just did things as hobbies, and let everyone benefit from them for free. That would really get things done.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I consider myself a neutral observer. But as far as capitalism goes, it simply isn't a good thing I don't believe. We can't all be fanatics I'm afraid. I never said I was against free trade or democracy or any number of other things, just the capitalistic machine that is tearing our world apart. So if you don't like toyota cars are you going to never ride in one? I guess you will Logos, you're not a hypocrit eh?

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I'm not surprised that you took my comment seriously. Any chance you get to tread on sarcasm it seems.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

If I objected to Toyota cars, I simply wouldn't purchase or use one. Likewise, if I actually objected to commercialization of MUDs, I wouldn't participate in any commercial MUD sites (such as the one you're using right now).

--matt

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I don't participate in commercial MUD sites. I wasn't even aware that this was a "commercial" mud site. Far as I knew it was a mud listing website, and when I signed up to start using it originally I don't think it even had the advertisements. But I never said I was totally against advertising, I'm not a fanatic like I said before.

I don't like the idea of taking something that started out free and fun, and turning it into a world of warcraft type business.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

It's been a commercial site that runs ads longer than you (or I) have been using it. ;)


You're setting up a false dichotomy there insofar as you're implying that free and fun are linked. They are not. I have an awesome time skiing, for instance, and it's certainly not free. Running, on the other hand, costs me no money but I dislike it intensely.

As far as the relationship between how something started and how it is now, I for one am very glad that people are able to unleash their creativity and create something new, which you appear opposed to. If you want something to be exactly like the first instance of it, why wouldn't you be looking only to play/talk about MUD 1? All other MUDs contain different features and are thus not what MUDs originally were. MUD 1 was cool for the time, but by today's standards it is a very, very limited/basic MUD. Thank goodness others took that seed of an idea and expanded upon it, giving us the diverse range of options we have in MUDs today, from the humblest DIKU clone with two players to the WoWs and Runescapes of the world with their millions of players.

It's also worth pointing out that the inventor of MUDs (Dr. Richard Bartle) ran a commercial MUD and that he himself has no problem with commercialization of MUDs.

--matt

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

This is true, I'm not totally against commercialization to the point of not wanting to buy a game that developers worked hard on and deserve my money. I just don't respect the commercializaiton of anything that takes advantage of the people paying money for it. And I think that's what commercial muds do. I've played commercial muds and have seen the tactics used to get players to continue spending money to play, and anyone with a bit of intelligence wouldn't waste their money.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Can we please stay on topic and stop straying off topic to mud bash. I really find that offensive to these forums.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

But isn't making consumers hand over their money in exchange for the goods or services they offer the goal of pretty much every commercial organization in existence? What do you want the owners of commercial muds to do, start using non-effective stratagies to get players to spend money instead of doing what works, in the hopes that people such as yourself will sleep easy knowing that random people you've never met and likely will never meet in the future aren't being taken advantage of? They'll just be taken advantage of by some other company anyways (Have you seen the price of gas these days? Now that is what I would call being taken advantage of).

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Of course, I don't care about commercial organizations in general, it's just muds trying to profit from the mudding community. It just doesn't feel right. If everyone felt the same way about it, we wouldn't have had the great codebases and community we have today.

Open source is the way to go. Could you imagine if linux wasn't free? Or if DIKU decided not to release it's code with their license. We wouldn't have many great muds in existance that are on the top of the mudlists you see at this website everyday.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Yes linux is free, but how many commercial releases of it do we see? Can anyone say SuSE.. RedHat...? Both of these either still produce or used to produce 'commercial' versions of their linux bundles. There are other commercial distros, but those are the ones that come to me off the top of my head, as I have had those.. actually have the first commercial release of linux that RedHat ever made.. ahh the headaches that thing caused. Wine is a freely available program, yet there are commercial version of it that have been specialized to handle certain things (Cedega.. Crossover Office). Should any of these be looked down on? No, far from it. They have worked hard to make Wine more useful for certain situations, and sometimes have even gotten licenses to the things they have added into the code (thus meaning they can't release those portions).

Open Source does not mean the software is free. Open Source is about providing the source code for the software freely. Now, by that I mean if you get the program (whether the program is free or you pay for it) you then should have access to the source code, if it is not already bundled with it. Yes a lot of Open Source programs are free, but a program that costs money can still be open source software. Open Source is about providing people with access to be able to see how the program they just got works, or even be able to make alterations to customize it to their specific needs, fixing bugs and the like, hopefully passing bug fixes up to the creators, and even redistributing their version of it. Open Source and the Free Software Foundation (which is slightly different fom Open Source) have nothing to do with the programs being free.

Diku is not Free software. It's not even really and truly Open Source. Yes, it costs you nothing to use, or even publish a game with it. But in order for a piece of software to be Free or truly Open Source, you have to have the freedom to do with it whatever you wish (pretty much don't break the law), including being able to sell your version of the modified software if you chose. Linux, on the other hand *is* Free and Open Source software since companies can take it, create their own distro using other Free or Open Source software, and turn around and sell the thing after they have it packaged how they want.

As for MUDs who are 'commercial'... You yourself have said that you do not mind paying a game developer for their hard work. Are MUD developers not game developers? Do they not put a lot of hard work and love into their projects? There is nothing wrong with those who put in the work to build their game from the ground up (or using a piece of Free software as a base) to seek a bit of payment for the game they have developed for others to play.

There are three groups that I can think offhand of that create pay-to-play MUDs. Play.net with their round of game, Iron Realms with theirs, and Frogdice (Creators of Threshold and soon Primordiax). Do I agree with everything these groups do for their games, nope. Do I think that they take advantage of the mudding community... only ones I can say yes to without a doubt there, is Play.net. $15/mo is a steep price for a text based game. However, I respect their right to do so. Gemstone has a long history, and as far as I know it has always been a commercial project.

Iron Realms.. I find their games to be quite well made, and I do enjoy firing up Lusternia or Aetolia and having my fun for a little while. I do not fault them for seeking to make some money off the games. As far as their payment method goes, yes the game is 'free to play', and you can get credits in game. However, you do need credits to be able to advance your character very far in the skill trees, and getting them through the in game credit market.. you'd need to spend hundreds of hours getting the gold to buy the credits to get your skills to high levels.

Frogdice, Threshold specifically, yup, that has been my 'home' MUD for years. There are some things I don't like about the game (mainly would love it to be more viable to advance characters without having to go out and kill stuff), but it is still well made. Granted there has been a lot of debate in the past about the game and it being a commercial game, and I'm not interested in getting into that discussion. My point is, the game has been well made, and the roleplaying in it is better than any other commercial game I have seen yet. I do feel that some of the 'perks' you can purchase should be available to all characters, but hey, that is their choice on how to handle it.

In short, charging money to play a MUD is not taking advantage of anyone. It is not going against the notion of Open Source or Free Software. Also, most MUD code bases do not fall under actual Free or Open Software. Cost may be free.. but they are not Free or Open.

Edit: Note about the games I mentioned that are commercial, and I mentioned things I didn't particularly like, they are just my personal opinions. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the game or the method they choose to make money. How they handle it is their choice, and right. If I don't like it, it is my choice whether or not I play there or give them my money. That right there is actually one incentive that commercial MUDs have to create a well made and entertaining game, if players don't like it, it's too buggy, or what ahve you, those players can easily take their money elsewhere.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Really? One page back you wrote, "I'm also against capitalism and commercialization though so go figure.


Backpedaling is fun isn't it?


And if we didn't have commercial text MUDs the most popular text MUDs in history would not have existed. The most popular text MUDs today are also commercial. The text MUD community loves commercial MUDs, as evidenced by those facts. You may not like them, and some other developers may not, but actions speak, and the text MUD community's actions say it's happy to support commercial MUDs.

I think another poster has already pointed out that you don't seem to understand what open source is. DIKU is certainly not open source.

Likewise, without commercial MUDs we wouldn't have many of the great muds in existence that are on top of the mudlists you see at this website every day. I wouldn't typically use any "top mud list" as justification for anything but you brought it up. Fully half of the top 10 MUDs here are commercial, and at least one other accepts money (Aardwolf, which isn't really fully commercial but does accept money sometimes).

And that's not even counting Gemstone and Dragonrealms (both commercial), which would be at the top of the TMS list if they participated in the voting actively.

The idea that one feature set of MUDs is "more right" than another is silly. Subscription charges, pay-for-virtual-item features, etc are just features, no different from having a weather system or a combat system .

--matt

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Delerak has made it clear that his is just an opinion, within the thread it counts just a "Why he would not play a MUD", he went a bit further and threw some flame-bait in his first post, has changed his argument as the fallacy of his initial words was pointed out and now is helping convert the thread into another "Commercial MUDs are evil, play RPIs as I define them!" thread.

Could we all just be aware of his intentions on derailing a perfectly fine thread into oblivion and let him just fade away into nothingness? If you know you are so absolutely right and he (Delerak) is so absolutely wrong (which for my standards has been 'proven' with arguments already) then just let it be. Others will come to the same conclusion and maybe have a good laugh at his arguments for not playing the MUDs he listed.

Let the thread return to its original intent please, it was a fine thread, it was a good thread ...

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

I totally agree.

Re: Things that make you NOT play a MUD
 

Other review flags for me:

Only Glowing reviews that sound similar. THis makes me wonder did the Admin write something and offer bonuses or favor for posting a good review? I question the credibility of the MUD if every single review has no bad points mentions and hit the same exact high points.

Admin 'answers' every review that contains a negative comment. For me a review should have pros and cons, although there are a few muds I have been on for which I could find nothing good to say except it is running - most of the time. Yet, time and time again I have seen admins (mainly on TMC) comment on a review in detail even to the point of revealing the reviewer's character names and their transgressions on the MUD. Sorry I just don't think comments like , "I found the roleplay contrived," or "There are too many unfinished areas or commands that do not function" warrant that.

Reviews are all a few days or hours apart. Again that smacks of a reward being offered. Now admittedly we will all as players occasdionally say hey such and such a mud site has nothing on this place in its reviews. But after an initail flurry, others should follow periodically.