Note the "'s - it's being used in a sarcastic or otherwise not serious manner.

Excepting certain twink MUDs, I've yet to see a MUD that could really be a 'loser' MUD. Nor would I call a MUD I never played a "loser" MUD.

-D

3 pages of crud in 1 day. Great work!

More! More! More!

But Brody did offend me, and he's made it quite clear that he doesn't care.

You specifically said that you found what Brody did to be "perfectly fine", and that it was "Almost too bad those muds who don't even make it to the 80-100 section can't also be underdogged/dark horsed/spotlighted as well".

Well, I "underdogged" your mud, and suddenly it was no longer fine - it was now "offensive and crude".

So please explain why it's "perfectly fine" for Brody to post material that offends me, but "offensive and crude" for me to post exactly the same style of material when it offends you.

He didn't respond to my valid points. Pointing out that what he's doing is offensive is not an attack. Pointing out that what he's doing does not achieve his claimed objective is not an attack.

I've already pointed out that we're not the only ones. Apparently Brody isn't the only one who ignores facts that get in the way of his argument.

Looks like the points I would have wanted to address have already been addressed, so....

One last thing - Dulan, I've explained why I think Brody has decided not to address the issue you raised with him. I accept his reasoning for it, and it likely would have been my own reasoning as well had this been my idea. Apparently the old tactic of "ignore the paranoid attack and it'll go away" doesn't work on you or Kavir. That you continue to try and find some underhanded scheme at work is disturbing. Are you ALWAYS this paranoid and suspicious in everything you do? Wait, don't answer that.....

Here's a summary of the thread:

Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
Alajha: That's quite offensive.
Brody: Who cares?
Ogma: We don't cheat in the voting.
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
Alajha: My friend runs that!
Alajha: You can't seem to see how tasteless you are.
Brody: It's my time, and it's not tasteless. You've got issues.
Alajha: You've not even played those muds.
OnyxFlame: I like the idea.
Burke: You've just got an axe to grind, Alajha.
Brody: Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm going not going to stop.
Quicksilver: Any advertising is good advertising!
the_logos: (makes comment about anti-Achaea remarks)
Klered: Keep up the good work!
CSmith_Fan: An "underdog" means it's actually the "best"!
KaVir: Actually "underdog" means a loser, or a victim of injustice.
Brody: Well I'm using the definition "One that is at a disadvantage".
Cayn: I think it's a great idea!
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
smadronia: I like the idea!
KaVir: You can post what you like, but you will offend people.
Burke: You're just nitpicking.
Kitsune: I think it's a good idea.
John: Keep up the good work!
Jehanelin: Brody should think about expanding the idea.
Terloch: Synozeer is considering having official TMS reviews.
Bastien: Underdog of the day is a good idea!
Molly O'Hara: It's a great idea, but why not change the name?
KaVir: Reviews are great, but UotD give no info. It's more like a charity.
John: The muds Brody selects are not "poor" muds.
KaVir: Right. So why portray them as inferior?
John: Brody is just trying to draw attention to these muds.
Vesper: Good work, Brody.
KaVir: Right John, but there's no need to infer they are "losers".
John: Fair enough.
Terloch: Brody didn't intend to infer they were losers, so who cares?
KaVir: He should care, if he's really trying to help people.
Terloch: We should all stop posting now.
Burke: (no idea, as he edited it out).
Dulan: Brody is just randomly advertising muds. No review, no reason.
John: It would take too long to write reviews.
Brody: I'm not changing the name. Write your own blurbs.
Dulan: Ah, so it's to feed your ego.
Brody: I don't care what you believe.
Dulan: I think you have an ulterior motive.
Brody: (Sarcastic suggestions). Anybody else care to speculate?
Dulan: (Sarcastic response).
Brody: (Sarcastic response).
Ytrewtsu: He's trying to help the community!
Dulan: (Sarcastic response).
Brody: Next underdog of the day will be posted after midnight.
Dulan: You never answered the question about your motives.
Noximist: I'm glad to see these muds get some recognition.
Alajha: I apologise. The underdog mud owner said she doesn't mind.
KaVir: Brody, there are better ways to achieve what you're aiming for.
Dulan: Agreed. Why not write a script?
Brody: (Sarcastic response). Next underdog coming up!
Dulan: You're ignoring the points that were raised.
CSmith_Fan: Who cares? Start your own threads.
Tocamat: Who cares?
Bastien: Get over it.
Dulan: (Comments about a vocal minority).
Keahi: Where's the next underdog?
enix: Brody is just trying to be nice.
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
Falconer: Brody's motives don't matter.
John: (Joking comments)
KaVir: Brody, you've still not answered the points I've raised.
Burke: Maybe he got wise and started ignoring you.
Brianna: Maybe Brody should change the name?
Burr: Scripting is possible. Full reviews would also be nice.
Dulan: Burke's name is an offensive slang word.
KaVir: Brody cannot make these problems go away by ignoring them.
OnyxFlame: Brody's endorsement is much better than random crap.
Bastien: (Sarcastic comment about Burke's name)
Azhon: This discussion is amusing.
Samson: Underdog is good. I wish the unranked muds got a mention.
KaVir: (to OnyxFlame) How can it be better? He's never tried the muds!
KaVir: (to Samson) Okay, here's the same style post about your mud.
Brody: That was a vicious mocking. Start a new thread.
Dulan: (Comments about Burke).
Alajha: Brody is just after attention - to become a "big player".
the_logos: (Comments about Burke). Keep it up Brody.
Kitsune: Who cares if Brody wants to post his underdog adverts?
enix: He's just doing the best he can.
Almondine War: I support any actions meant in goodwill.
Dulan: Just as MUDs are public, so are people and their comments.
CSmith_Fan: (Complains that the thread won't die).
Loremaster: I think what Brody has done is a nice thing to do.
KaVir: (to Brody) I posted exactly the same style post as you.
Samson: The difference is that Brody's posts weren't offensive.
Dulan: Why does he keep dodging questions?
KaVir: They were as offensive to me as mine was to you.
Orion Elder: Brody has made it clear that he's trying to help!
Samson: But Brody didn't set out to offend!
Dulan: Brody dodges questions, ignores suggestions.
kris: (Loser Thread of the day post).
CSmith_Fan: That homosexual comment was out of line, kris.
kris: Yeah, that was the point. I wasn't being serious.
the_logos: It was still offensive.
Dulan: He was being sarcastic.
Azhon: 3 pages of crud in 1 day. Great work!
KaVir: (to Samson) But he did offend me.
Orion Elder: But you were being offensive.
Samson: Brody has decided not to address his motives.

Here's a shorter version, without all the "me too" and unrelated posts (I've also removed the Dulan/Brody insult exchanges):

Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
Alajha: That's quite offensive.
Brody: Who cares?
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
Alajha: My friend runs that!
Alajha: You can't seem to see how tasteless you are.
Brody: It's my time, and it's not tasteless. You've got issues.
Alajha: You've not even played those muds.
Brody: Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm going not going to stop.
KaVir: Actually "underdog" means a loser, or a victim of injustice.
Brody: Well I'm using the definition "One that is at a disadvantage".
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
KaVir: You can post what you like, but you will offend people.
KaVir: Reviews are great, but UotD give no info. It's more like a charity.
John: The muds Brody selects are not "poor" muds.
KaVir: Right. So why portray them as inferior?
Terloch: Brody didn't intend to infer they were losers, so who cares?
KaVir: He should care, if he's really trying to help people.
Brody: I'm not changing the name. Write your own blurbs.
Brody: Next underdog of the day will be posted after midnight.
KaVir: Brody, there are better ways to achieve what you're aiming for.
Dulan: Agreed. Why not write a script?
Brody: (Sarcastic response). Next underdog coming up!
Dulan: You're ignoring the points that were raised.
Brody: It's an underdog of the day!
KaVir: Brody, you've still not answered the points I've raised.
Burke: Maybe he got wise and started ignoring you.
KaVir: Brody cannot make these problems go away by ignoring them.
OnyxFlame: Brody's endorsement is much better than random crap.
Samson: Underdog is good. I wish the unranked muds got a mention.
KaVir: (to OnyxFlame) How can it be better? He's never tried the muds!
KaVir: (to Samson) Okay, here's the same style post about your mud.
Brody: That was a vicious mocking. Start a new thread.
KaVir: (to Brody) I posted exactly the same style post as you.
Samson: The difference is that Brody's posts weren't offensive.
Dulan: Why does he keep dodging questions?
KaVir: They were as offensive to me as mine was to you.
Orion Elder: Brody has made it clear that he's trying to help!
Samson: But Brody didn't set out to offend!
Dulan: Brody dodges questions, ignores suggestions.
KaVir: (to Samson) But he did offend me.
Orion Elder: But you were being offensive.
Samson: Brody has decided not to address his motives.

Conclusion:

Brody, for reasons of his own, decided to start randomly advertising muds which weren't on the front page. As I said to him at the time, the concept isn't a bad one, but as quickly became apparently, the name is rather derogatory and the adverts don't actually offer any incentive to try the mud (there's no real info about the muds - indeed, Brody hasn't even tried connecting to them).

In many aspects of the mud community, the bouncing back and forth of ideas is essential in order to create a worthwhile venture. In mud development, it is the only way to create a decent game. And it is no different here. If you go to any of the mud related websites you'll see contributor sections, places to send suggestions, and so on.

In this case, however, Brody simply refused to listen, consider, or respond to the points that were raised. Instead of taking the opportunity to refine his concept with the aid of the other members of the community, he instead decided to obliviously continue on his set course.

I've repeatedly tried to steer the conversation back towards improving the idea, but just got bombarded with responses like "Who cares?" and "You've got issues". I doubt that most of the posters have even read the thread before jumping onto the bandwagon, which is really rather sad.

If you want to flame me, fine. But at least have the decency of considering my viewpoint. Samson, I apologise for insulting you, but I needed to drive home the point that just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean it isn't offensive to someone else. Both "underdog" and "loser" have a negative meaning, as well as an non-negative (and correct) one within the context of the TMS rankings. I had hoped you might be able to see past the post and understand what I was getting at.

You might want to check out some of the articles () he's written for TMS to contribute to the community. Perhaps take note in his most recent one he mentions that he runs three MU*s.

I don't know if that makes him a 'Big Player' (whatever that is) but it certainly gives him a lot more credibility than someone like you, who has nothing but negativity to add to any forum discussion you participate in.

You can continue to watch this particular train wreck, or you can go to the real Underdogs thread at

I wrote a summary, I didn't "quote" anyone. I thought you might appreciate it, as apparently you couldn't be bothered to read the thread before posting.

10% is a minority, therefore it doesn't matter? I never said Brody had to change it, I simply pointed out that if - as he claimed - he was trying to help people, then he should bare in mind that his posts came across as derogatory. You should also bare in mind that when this was brought to Brody's attention, it was done by the only other poster in the thread - and Brody's response? "it's really no skin off *your* nose, is it?"

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the word "underdog" means either "a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest" or "a victim of injustice or persecution". Brody stated the definition he wished to use - but then so did I, in my "Loser of the day" post.

However the whole "underdog" thing was just a minor point that I thought any reasonable person would simply correct.

Person B points out that it doesn't currently achieve much, but with refinement could indeed be very useful, hoping that other people will join in and help expand the idea.

Person A ignores person B's criticisms and suggestions and continues with his concept that doesn't really add anything of value.

People C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L jump up and down screaming "Person A good! Person B bad!"

You know, I've seen muds where the administrators had a very similar sort of attitude towards feedback. They tend to stagnate very quickly.

KaVir,

This isn't about whether I'd answer your questions. I made it quite clear in one of my recent posts addressing your behavior that I'd be perfectly willing to discuss this with you privately, rationally, like a couple of adults.

What it's about now, it seems, is whether I answer you on *your* terms, in a public venue, where *you* can continue to condescendingly seek fault in an act of kindness.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm just trying to stop this insane, pointless, petty playground shoving match. And I'm not doing it to be belligerent or oblivious. I asked you to take it private because I wanted you to escape this thread with a shred of dignity and credibility still intact.

For the record, I haven't received one e-mail from you. Not one private message. Nothing indicating you *really* have an interest in talking. So, one must assume that what you really want is for me to be a good minion and do what *KaVir* demands, simply because you're KaVir.

In the past five years, KaVir, since I entered the world of MU* management, I've always looked to you at least with respect, even if I haven't always agreed with what you've said. It was with respect in mind that I wanted to end the public one-man ****ing match.

You were a *hero*. Now you're an *object lesson*.

Frankly, I've got nothing left in the respect reservoir for you, but I've got an abundance of pity. This I can thank you for, though: You've shown me exactly the guy I *don't* want to be. I've gone down that ugly, petty, vindictive road a few times myself, within my own games, to their detriment. It's a shame to see you self-destructing like this over something so silly, but at least it serves as a wakeup call for the rest of us who strive to make something of ourselves in this community: Don't become so caught up in your own hype that you think everyone else owes you their fealty by default.

I hope you get your train back on track.

Best wishes,

Wes

Well said... I think ending this here would be in EVERYONE'S best interests. Can I get a second?

In your previous post you stated "So because two out of I dunno 20 or so people, give or take, find something offensive it should be changed?", so that was the figure I was going by. However it's really little more than pure speculation on anyones part as to how many people are likely to be offended, plus as I also pointed out, it's really not all that important. It was simply intended as a point of note that I felt might be worth taking into consideration.

I specifically stated which definitions I was using at the bottom of the post - and they were non-offensive. The fact that it was taken as an offense is no surprise, because that was the very point I was trying to highlight.

Any logical person will go through the thread for themself and make their own mind up. It's not difficult to see that I repeatedly tried to point out that Brody's solution wasn't addressing what he was aiming for, and deliberately refrained from attacking him for quite some time. It has nothing to do with agreement - I said early on that I had no objection to him saying that he disagreed. But I find it both rude and arrogant that he didn't even bother to respond to the points I had made, while continuing to claim that he was doing it for the good of the community.

Then please cite this evidence and I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

I believe that you should create the mud for yourself, yes - but that doesn't mean you should simply dismiss every possible idea out of hand. I have a firm vision for what I'm currently developing, but I will always listen to the players. Often their suggestions go against the vision (often because they don't really understand it) in which case I will explain to them why I won't use those ideas. Other times they raise points I hadn't considered, and which I need to address, or provide feedback which compliments the existing ideas.

But in this case the vision, the intent, is clear. And Brody isn't creating the list for himself, but for other people. This would be the equivilent of a mud being created for the players, in which the mud administrator doesn't care what the players think.

Orion: I second that Brody's response should be an end to the thread. Unfortunately, it would seem someone ELSE decided it wasn't, which is sad.


This right here sums it all up nicely. Thank you for providing your own words to hang you with. You're ****ed because he decided NOT to engage you in this silly debate of yours and THAT is the ONLY reason for why you continued to hammer on about it. You're like the little brother who keeps picking on the big brother, and then when the big brother's only response is "I refuse to get sucked in" you throw a tantrum and tell everyone what a bastard your big brother was for not acknowledging your stupidity and that he's not really acting for the good of everyone by avoiding the fight.


Now then, the motion has been seconded, can we get a third, and perhaps an end to this? Or do we need to endure 12 more pages of Kavir whining about how he's not getting the results he wants?

Well I've just been through all of your posts, and the closest you come is when you said "You can attack *me* all you like over this. In another thread, via private message, fine."

However I didn't want to attack you. I'd repeatedly tried to avoid doing just that, because I was hoping you'd see sense, and I knew from experience that if I flamed you, your pride would never let you change your viewpoint.

What I wanted to do was discuss the issue openly, so that everyone could give their opinions. Not just you, not just us, but everyone on these forums. I am no more infallible than you or anyone else, but the more people who give input, the better the end result is likely to be.

Samson, please, try to show a little maturity. I already apologised for - and explained the reasoning behind - the post I made earlier.

Kavir, I think you missed my point entirely in your "summary". My point was that you are out of line for posting as you have throughout this post because as a forum moderator you should follow the guidelines set forth for a board. You are not posting promotional material about a mud (except maybe Samson's although I hardly think that qualifies) thus your posts should not even be here.  

Ytrewtsu - who thinks the replies on this thread are out of line and not consistent with the intent of the board.

Yes, you did. But since I'm honestly not convinced you did it to try and smooth things over, I'm not entirely sure you truly meant it. I'm more inclined to believe you've done so to try and make yourself look better in the eyes of others. In the words of someone else in this thread, I suspect you had other motives.

If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance for being my usual cynical/paranoid self.

Ytrewtsu, this board is for posting adverts, true, but it's also for posting responses to those adverts - and that's what I did. While I agree that this thread has gotten somewhat out of hand, I would not consider it off-topic, but you'd really have to ask the moderator.

Samson, as should be readily apparent at this point, I do not write posts to try and "smooth things over". I state my mind. I did feel somewhat guilty about picking your mud, however - you just happened to say the wrong thing at the wrong time during the discussion, just as I was looking for a more blatant way to get my point across, and provided me with the perfect opening. It was not personal.

Seriously, Kavir, this is way beneath you.

Over the years I haven’t always seen eye to eye with you, but I’ve always respected you – up till now.

Why do you keep making such an issue about these semantics? Sure – ‘underdog’ just MIGHT be considered having a negative ring by a few people. (From the look of this thread not to many though, most people seem to interpret it as mainly positive, which I am sure also was Brody’s intention). However, the word YOU used to hammer down your point – ‘loser’ – is generally interpreted as being an insult. I think you must see the difference here.

I tried to make a constructive suggestion myself somewhere back in the thread about choosing another word, later Brianna posted a similar advice. Brody choose not to take any of those. So what? It's his choice to make. Do you see Brianna or me throwing a hissy fit over that?

Even your usually faithful sidekick Dulan is saying that you come out a bit like a prick in this. Doesn’t that give you any suggestions?

What you are doing on this thread has gone far beyond ‘not being constructive’, you are being downright DEstructive – but more to your own reputation than to Brody’s.

So please, do us all a favour and end this now.

Molly, the only reason the "underdog" thing kept coming up was because other people kept going on and on about it. I pointed out that it offended some people, and everyone else insisted on harping on about how it didn't matter, rather than addressing the main concern.

If you really want the thread to end, then why reiterate points which have already been covered and explained? Throwing childish insults is hardly the right way to end a flame war, either. So please, practice what you preach, and cut the whining.

Untill now, I thought I had accomplished my goals within this thread - 1) Pointing out Brody's ulterior motives and showing that this 'goodness of the heart' and 'for the good of the Community' are nothing but BS. This is proved by his action of completely ignoring all suggestions, and casually brushing away of valid points that he does not want to answer - something completely unlike the Brody that I knew and respected. Past tense intended. (Want me to start a flamewar, anyone? Anyone? I've not been flaming yet, but there ARE parallels that can be drawn between the Third Reich and this. But, invoking Godwin's Law is not normally my style.) 2) I proved my vocal minority point. Very well.

Now, Molly, you've managed to drag me right back into this #### thread.

Everyone in this thread, INCLUDING myself, are behaving like asshats. Please, please don't put words in my mouth. Ever. Apologize, or please back your statement in which I stated outright that KaVir, and ONLY KaVir is behaving like an asshat. Furthermore, I believe I am owed an apology for the "sidekick" remark - KaVir is someone who I won't flame, that does not make me his sidekick. Furthermore, while one of my goals for this thread is similar to KaVir's goals, another is entirely different. One that actually conflicts with a goal of KaVir's, in fact, if you'd bother to pay attention for two seconds.

And I believe I am also owed an apology for calling MUDs losers by someone on this thread. Well? I'm waiting.

Furthermore, I wish that Brody would just come out and tell us why he is doing this. Statements like "good of the Community" and "goodness of his heart" are used by three people. Politicians, slimy lawyers, or people who want something and want to appear perfect while they get it (Both of the above?). This is a Psych major speaking, mind you - I'll even get off my arse and quote specific points from Psych books once I finish off with midterms to prove this point.

Now, Samson and KaVir - kiss and make up all damned ready. Samson: KaVir had a valid point, and he expressed it very well, with multiple disclaimers. Let it drop already - if even I saw it was not meant to be insulting, I am very sure you should be able to as well. I mean, ####, you've laid claim to being more mature then me, and you sure as #### aren't acting like it. KaVir: Perhaps you should have expressed your point in a slightly less offensive manner, or had more explicit disclaimers?

I mean, ####, I'M supposed to be the resident clueless flamer that never lets anything drop, and I'm getting irritated here! There are three valid points. A) Brody is dodging questions and ignoring suggestions, B) We are all acting like asshats, and C) This thread has lost its original point. Good god. I mean, even Samson is using the fallacy of distraction, and that's something I'd never expect from him - much less over something so silly as using his MUD to make a point!

No, really - if you want to look away from this episode of Fox's "When Good Forums Go Bad," you can find the real Underdogs thread at

This thing is still alive?

Amazing.

<more please>

Edit: <Insert mention of Medievia here to distract kavir and increase postage>

Orion, I ignored your insults and twisting of my words last time in the hope that you might be willing to discuss the issues like an adult.  I'll do the same once more, and I urge you to consider seriously before replying this time, because if you really push me then I will indeed give you a flame war.

Or we could discuss this in a positive way, and perhaps turn this discussion into something constructive.

Your call.

Waitaminute. 13 pages of vehement posting isn't a flamewar? Beating down the little guy isn't a flamewar? Acting totally illogical and stubborn isn't the sign of a flamewar? Isn't this the guy that went and defined what it meant to flame a while back? How low the mighty have fallen.

No, Wik, I've been holding myself back. I've been maintaining the hope that eventually, maybe, possibly, this can go somewhere constructive.

In an effort to twist this into something positive or constructive:

I wonder if in England (where KaVir is from), the word underdog has different connotations than in America. In America, underdog is generally a good thing. It's the little guy that everyone is cheering for. It's the guy that's not getting a fair shake because the odds are stacked against him, but he keeps on plugging away anyway. Maybe in England it has less positive associations?

Just a thought.

I needed an example I could use to point out how I interpret the meaning of "underdog". At the very time I was trying to find a way to do so, you wrote a post saying how great you thought Brody's adverts were, and how you wished the unranked muds would also get a mention. That gave me exactly the sort of opening I needed to make my point. I later apologised because I had "used" your post to prove my point, at your expense - it hadn't been an attempt to insult your mud, but rather to prove how a so-called "non-offensive" advert could come across as being extremely insulting.

Need a distraction from the distraction? Visit the new home of Brody's Underdog MUD of the Day, in the Tavern of the Blue Hand topic.

Direct address:

Yes, I understand why you did it. That part wasn't lost on me. I could see it when you first posted it. The problem is that you're post was clearly intended to provoke a certain reaction, which it did. The wording of it was carefully chosen so as to assure that the reaction you wanted was what you got. Brody had no such intention, and indeed it wasn't labeled as offensive until you pointed it out. Even after that, only 1 or 2 people ( I can't recall now ) came to the same conclusion.

I'm rambling now though. Keeping track of all this is becoming a problem..... short attention span and all.

I've seen some pointless threads in my day. H3ll, I've even been a major contributor to some pointless threads.  But I think that this one definitely takes the cake.

I twisted nothing. I simply pointed out how what you're doing is deplorable. You can take it as insults and twisting of your words, if you like... but I was simply pointing out what is going on.

KaVir, your threats mean as much to me as Dulan's threats. Which is to say, they mean nothing. If you want to talk, talk. If you want to flame, flame. If you want to gripe, gripe. But, don't try to be so pretentious as to imply I should be worried by your threats, and make no mistake that is EXACTLY what this is.

This thread lost to potential to be constructive when you found the need to CONSTANTLY hammer away at Brody when he was trying to keep the post from degrading into what it has become... an affront to common sense.

I'll see you and raise five 'E's.

Going for page 15th…

<Sarcasm:
Poor you. I can just picture you, being dragged, kicking and screaming, back to the kind of flamewar we all know that you so passionately dislike and fervently avoid…
End of Sarcasm>

Like Orion already pointed out, you said that KaVir was behaving like an asshat. You didn’t mention anyone else behaving like one. At least not in THAT context. Or anywhere else earlier in the thread, as far as I can see.

And while we are beating at semantics; Exactly WHERE did I say that you ‘stated outright that KaVir, and ONLY KaVir is behaving…’ etc?
All I did was quoting your own words.

Now you managed to make ME a bit irritated too. So let me continue this flamew… I mean nice and mature and 'constructive' little discussion by making this statement:

People who accuse other people of having ulterior motives are quite often the ones who hold the ulterior motives themselves.

So which are YOUR motives for bringing this question up repeatedly?

Why to you "-D" every time you post? Is the box the left not obvious enough? It is most unnecessary. Perhaps put it in your sig so it doesn't display per my settings?

Aaaaand to get back on topic: Flame Flame Flame Flame.

Azhon: If I sign something with "-D", it means I'm not serious, as in it's the whole 'Dulan' flamer facade I use on the major boards.

Molly: I've stated my motives before. Brody irritated me with himself trying to appear a shining and outstanding citizen with no motives other then that whole "goodness of his heart" BS. In other words, 'irritation' is my motive, neh?

All issues of motivation and such aside, I'll just weigh in briefly with my opinion on the concept of what you're doing, Brody. I think it's a self-defeating scheme. You may or may not have genuinely "good" intentions for this project, but it is doomed to irrelevance for one reason:

You don't actually offer any useful information.

No informative review... heck, not even a alf-hassed "I spent 20 mins in the MUD" review. Even if everyone was polite enough to keep the flames out of this thread, it would turn into nothing more than spam after a few weeks. After three months, your list would basically be a mirror of the bottom 80 of the list, albeit in a shuffled order.

In short, you might have good intentions, but the execution leaves much to be desired.

note: This is not intended to be a flame, it's merely a bit of constructive criticism.

Perhaps it would be a better idea instead to do "Brody's MUD of the week", giving you time to gather some useful information about the MUD in question.

You're all idiots.

Keahi, please get a grip on yourself. Even if you are unable or unwilling to contribute anything to the discussion, that doesn't mean you should try and ruin it for those of us who are. I realise you're just a newbie, but that's still no excuse for poor manners.

JilesDM: Some very valid points, and similar to those I've been trying to point out for a while now. Here are some of my thoughts on a possible solution - it's just a rough idea, but hopefully it'll provide a starting point to discuss:

I don't think a review necessarily has to be too intensive to be of value, but it should at least go into some details which already aren't covered in the TMS description. While a thorough in-depth review would always be nice, not many people are able to devote that much time to playing each mud.

However one possibility would be to do the "5 minute" test. It's been my experience that you need capture the player's interest within their first few minutes in order for them to stay. Thus a reviewer could log on, and see what their impression is after the first 5 minutes.

Obviously that is nowhere near long enough to give most muds justice, but it would still be useful to get a newcomers first impression - and not just for potential players, but also for the muds themselves.

The review could also point out how helpful the players and staff were - an important factor for many players, and once which is very difficult to work out from the description of a mud (because obviously no mud is going to tell you if their staff are rude to newbies).

It would also be nice to have a brief run-down of what the mud would have to offer later on, as sometimes the mud descriptions don't really cover the features in any detail. For example, while a description might say "we've got a wilderness system", many players would also be interested to know whether the wilderness system used ascii maps, generated descriptions (and what type), or both. Some wilderness systems are just static landscapes, while others can be modified and interacted with by the players (for example, chopping down trees and using them to build your own house). This run-down shouldn't cover things which are already mention in the TMS listing, but should instead focus on the details which the description missed.

Finally, rather than having the review posted by a single person, I think it would beneficial to give the overall impressions of two or three different reviews, each of whom has different tastes in muds. Obviously someone who only likes pure RP muds is unlikely to get a good first impression from even the most well original and well thought-out Pure PK/HnS mud - and vice versa.

While I realise that Brody is probably not interested in this, I still think it could be a beneficial undertaking that would not only help promote some of the lesser known muds, but would also allow players to see some (reasonably) unbiased opinions from the point of view of a new player.

The idea of a group of reviewers doing something like that is a good one - oddly enough, Enzo brought up something like it in a thread here:



If carried out the way he's suggesting, it's certainly more valid than many reviews we see now.

I've never said what I'm doing is a review, by the way. In fact, I've gone out of my way to say it's not. I *do* visit the games to make sure they're operational (and said as much in my introductory post to the Tavern of the Blue Hand version of this thread). But I'm not limiting myself to games that would survive even a normal five-minute test. Some of these are games in the alpha phase that are looking for staff, trying to get off the ground.

For you, for others, there may seem little value in giving even slight exposure to these lower-ranked games day-after-day. But the cumulative effect is that every day I post about a new game from the sub-20s, there's a chance that game - and every other game in that thread - will get people checking it out.

And, Jiles, given the rate at which games proliferate - and the fluid nature of the lower rankings (especially 81-100) - I don't think I'll need to go to a weekly pick anytime soon. If anything, I'll just have to plunge a little farther and do as Samson suggested: Find games in the sub-100s to help out.

** Disclaimer **

I am fully aware that what I say will more than likley be over-looked in the massive flame-war, but I, being of sound mind and body, try anyways to get a point across

** End Disclaimer **

People keep asking what the point or relevance of the whole thing is, and why do it. It's honestly very simple. Exposure.

Brody isn't trying to post a definitive review. He's not even really giving his own opinion (other than the "It's worth checking out" tagline), it's simply being put up there for exposure. It's honestly just like having a banner or a listing on here EVEN in the top 10. They are there for exposure. Currently the game I admin is ranked #6 on here, so my listing gets quite a bit of exposure. My listing on here is only there to attempt to draw people to the game, and hopefully give them a reason to dig further on here, on the web, on the game, and so on. Same with banners, I put them up and hope that they draw someone's attention and someone checks it out and delves further.

With that said, honestly, if Brody wants to take time out of his day to give some game which is buried on one of the back pages a little bit of exposure which it normally would not get, more power to him. And is it working? Well, this thread now has over 5700 views, so we can assume that there's exposure of some sort. The other "flame-free" forum has 225 views, lower, but less yapping like small dogs, so imho, bonus.

Get off Brody's ass to be honest, if he wants to do it, let him. If he wants to call it something of his own choosing, let him. If you all want to keep flaming back and forth, my god, go for it, but honestly, if you want to more productively USE the hours spent on this topic alone flaming back and forth on something trivial and not even remotely flame-worthy, why doesn't someone take 5 minutes, go find one of the less-exposed sites in the bottom 80, DO a "5-minute test" and post something on a forum about it. Crap, if I wasn't at work and firewalled from doing so myself, I would do it personally...


Terl