I am starting a new thread for this, since the old one is 'overloaded' to say the least. (Hopefully the same arguments for and against will not be hashed and rehashed here again).

Quite some time ago a request was made by several posters if a function for commercial resp. non-commercial games could be added to the TMS search engine. The question was discussed in detail for a very long time, and I was under the impression that some sort of consencus had been reached about the content for such a function.

I believe Valg was going to mail Synozeer about it, and since some weeks have passed now, I'd like to ask:

Was there any reaction/decision from Synozeer, and if so, in what direction?

I was going to let the threads go for a couple days to see if new input popped up, and then forgot about it until today. I sent an email to Synozeer this morning, and he'll comment or not based on his interest.

The short version of a longer email:

Top MUD sites provides a page where games provide information about themselves. Presently, one category includes a checkbox for "Pay-to-Play", with no definition attached. The proposal is to expand and clarify this existing utility with four checkboxes, replacing the old one:

( ) Optional payments can influence gameplay.
( ) Optional payments access otherwise unavailable gameplay.
( ) A one-time payment is required to continuously play.
( ) Recurring payments are required to continuously play.

I think the above wording will result in nobody ticking the box, on account of the fact that most such muds hold contests and other activities which theoretically allow players the chance to access all parts of gameplay without making payments.

I offered to write more descriptive language as a hyperlink from each term which would spell out some gray areas. One possibility would be to change the point in question to:

( ) Optional payments access normally unavailable gameplay

From there, we could explain that "normally unavailable gameplay" means it could not be accessed for free at any given time.

For example, one common model is to sell equipment. If the equipment is only ever available if you pay the fees, or by winning a one-time or annual contest, you check the box. If the equipment is sold but is otherwise possible to get on any given day, you don't.

I have a problem with the first check box (Optional payments can influence gameplay). This seems to be more of a value judgement than hard facts, therefore making it ambiguous. How do you exactly define influencing the gameplay? No one would check this box either, it's confusing unless some more specific wording is added.

Aside from the choice of verb (alter?), I guess I don't find it unclear. What type of game couldn't make a decision there?

As far as "No one would check this box"... I think IRE would, Aardwolf would, Threshold would, Materia Magica would, Medievia would... that list goes on. the_logos points out that by making these sorts of payments, one can accelerate one's development within the game, which is appealing to some players. Other people have voiced a dislike for it, because it introduces an OOC variable into an IC equation. The checkbox would just let people know in advance which kind of game it is.

It's clear from the language ("optional", "can") that paying is voluntary, and that you get something for it. I don't think any of the games in question would dispute that. If they would, I encourage them to speak up and explain why, of course.

I doubt that's why. There are already tons of OOC variables involved in most MUDs, from requirements that you speak an OOC language (English) to requirements that you invest a ton of OOC time, etc. If there's any opportunity for expression of player skill, there's an OOC element involved there as well.


I wouldn't check it because I don't care for the wording and because I dislike the motives behind it. I'd imagine lots of people would feel the same way about checkboxes for "mud administration headed by amateur mud developers" and "mud administration headed by professional mud developers."

--matt

So if the monster that drops the equipment resets every 2 days instead of every day, is the equipment normally available or not? What about if it resets every week? Every month? Every year? Now what about if it requires the administration to flip a switch to make it reset?

--matt

If Synozeer implemented the feature, you would lie?

How professional of you.

No. I just wouldn't check it, which is what I said. If you're going to devolve into flaming, I ask that you take it to another thread.

--matt

Which would be lying. The feature puts a question to you, and by answering "no", you would be lying. IRE accepts optional payments for in-game content, notably credits. It's not a gray area. It's a bald-faced black-and-white lie.

Lying is unprofessional behavior. Accurately calling you out for threatening to do so is not "flaming", any more than your recent threads points out Materia Magica's lies was flaming. As a professional game administrator, the amateurish behavior you are displaying appalls me.

Declining to fill out a form is not lying, it's simply declining to fill out a form that I have no obligation to fill out. It's not lying any more than not filling out the "gender" section of a customer satisfaction survey. If Synozeer asked me to, I would either do it or not, as I choose and the consequences would follow, as Synozeer chooses and as I choose.

Flame on. It's your standard operating procedure anyway.

--matt

This would not a new form.  You presently fill out a form like this to have your MUD listed here.  The proposal would be to add four new yes/no questions to a list which already has a couple dozen such questions.

Asking you to be honest isn't flaming you.  

Beyond that, you've written far saltier things on this site on a regular basis (links available on request), and the accusation strikes me as hypocritical to say the least.

Incidentally, I might add that your own MUD and virtually every MUD on earth falls in this category of "optional payments may influence gameplay."

If the concern is actually "introducing an OOC variable" (nevermind that every MUD is already full of OOC variables), then it doesn't matter who the money is going to: It's precisely as OOC whether you're paying real money to another player or to the game admin for that Sword of Ubercoolness, and there is no MUD I'm aware of that can make an honest claim that there is no way a payment of real money could ever influence gameplay.

--matt

I think the different boxes to determine "which kind" of pay-to-play game it is can be summed up in just two, and four isn't needed:

1) Payment optional for some or all game benefits.
2) Payment required for some or all game benefits.

A game like Gemstone would click both 1 and 2, because payment is required to play, and optional benefits, such as weddings and quests are available for an extra fee.

The IRE games would fall under 1, but not 2, because any of their things can be acquired for free, but the option exists to pay for them to get them quicker or without winning a contest or submitting whatever it is those folks let you submit to get a free perk.

Games that accept donations to cover server costs, but don't provide any benefits beyond the existence of the game on the server, would continue to be categorized as "free to play" along with those games that don't take donations to cover server costs. Also included in free to play are games whose admins offer non-game benefits for money, such as mouse-pads and t-shirts.

The option boxes for the "pay to play" shouldn't be a "pick one" but instead should be a "pick all that apply." Allowing for "optional" vs. "required" covers everything, and lets those that do both (such as Gemstone) continue to maintain its commercial integrity by allowing it to pick both.

The MUD's policies would be the decisive factor. I thought that was obvious, but maybe it does need clarification.

IRE accepts cash for in-game perks as part of their WvW system. We use a PvP system instead, so it's our policy not to accept money for in-game perks. Incidentally, player-to-player cash transactions of that sort are also forbidden by our rules, punishable by deletion of the offending characters. Someone could conceivably get away with it behind our backs, but that's very different than a codified system allowing or requiring the MUD to collect fees.

I know you've previously mentioned a time you bribed a MUD admin for favors, but I've never even been approached in such a fashion. I frankly suspect you made the whole thing up to bolster this painfully contrived attempt to claim a game like Carrion Fields uses the same business model as yours do. The models are quite different, which is why I'm proposing more accurate labeling for both.

Everyone knows why you're resistant to honest disclosure of your commercial model, even though you've previously stated you're open to accurate descriptions of this sort. But it doesn't mean I intend to roll over and make it easy for you to conceal it.

We're free. I fully intend to let as many people as possible know what that means.

I'm equally fine with this instead of my initial proposal in this thread, including the caveats given in the rest of your post.

Really, the differences are clear from a player's perspective, so we should be able to come up with a labeling system that reflects that intuition.

No, it's not obvious. What's obvious is that now that it's been pointed out that Carrion Fields might potentially fall into that category, you wish to redefine the meaning of the category.

Here's what you gave as the reasoning:

As far as "No one would check this box"... I think IRE would, Aardwolf would, Threshold would, Materia Magica would, Medievia would... that list goes on. the_logos points out that by making these sorts of payments, one can accelerate one's development within the game, which is appealing to some players. Other people have voiced a dislike for it, because it introduces an OOC variable into an IC equation. The checkbox would just let people know in advance which kind of game it is.


So, your reasoning was that people don't want the OOC variable to be introduced. Dubious to single out one OOC variable when so many others are also relevant, but we'll pretend for now. I will demonstrate that I can purchase something on your game, thus showing that "optional payments can influence gameplay." Whether you delete me or not, gameplay has been undeniably influenced. And I can do it again, and again, and again. Anyone can. How many of your players wouldn't sell one piece of minor equipment for some sum of money?

Now, you've decided that what you really meant wasn't whether optional payments can influence gameplay, but whether the administration braces it or not. It's like claiming that you can't purchase gold in WoW, even though you can by simply going to any number of sites and it's a huge factor in the game. It's just harder to do in Carrion Fields, as there is likely not an existing centralized marketplace.

I mean, look, of course there is a difference between whether an administration embraces it or not, but my point was to show that your motivations do not appear genuine. You changed the fundamental meaning behind that check mark from an OOC factor to the existence of an administration policy only when it was pointed out that, however infrequent, money can definitely have an effect on Carrion Fields, your mud.

I don't need to approach you. The idea is that it's easily possible, and impossible to reliably prevent or trace, player to player transactions for money. To you, the game admin, they look fundamentally alike to any other transfer of an item for any other reason.


Hey, I tell you what: I'm happy to mark the box that says that optional payments can have an impact on gameplay if you are also willing to disclose it honestly.

The problem is that it's a poorly worded list. I have stated, over and over, that I have no problems with honest disclosure. Oh, and again, since we're being honest, you won't mind disclosing that Carrion Fields is "ultimately administered by amateur mud admins" as opposed to "ultimately administered by full-time professional mud admins" right? Of course you would. It's funny, though, how one needn't feel compelled to run a little crusade to enforce one (out of multiple) meanings of the word by attacking people who use not only an equally valid meaning, but the industry standard meaning. (Incidentally, think on how stupid this sentence sounds: Hey, I'm a skier, and I'm pretty good. I am therefore a professional skier!")

--matt

I don't see why you all have such a big problem with the IRE games.

Each of their games' websites have information about the credits system, and when playing the games as soon as you're finished the newbie quest you're told about the credits. As I'm sure the_logos will attest, IRE's business model relies on people finding out that one can spend money on their game.

3) Mandatory Money Donations by some players to cover hosting costs.
4) Requirement to buy products from associates to cover hosting costs.

Add those to the list and it might display a true picture of what is the actual necesity of RL money to play the game.

Carrion Fields would check both, then many MUDs would have to check the 3rd (at least all of those that will appear on the first couple of pages and have not checked the previous two)

And what about something like,
5) Optional payments may alter experience closely tied to the game (and may actually influence the game itself that way).

So, for instance, Carrion Fields would check that one, as they sell tributes to in-game dead characters on their forums.

--matt

This really sums it all up. The new standards are being framed as something that will be helpful to players, but the ones I see consistently starting arguments about the meanings of "free" and "pay to play" are various mud administrators. I don't recall any posts from an upset newbie who was misled into playing a game under false pretense.

This is clearly directed against a minority of muds, all of which seem to be very popular. I'm not going to claim to know the intentions behind the proposed search engine changes, but its hard to not see it as plain jealousy.

- Ryan

I'm not going to claim to know your reasoning for wanting to limit the spread of information to the MUD community and player base, but its hard not to see as plain bias. After all you did buy the rights to use rapture from IRE and your forums state you intend to use a pay for perk model. It is just not good business practice to give a potential customer as much information as possible that might hurt sales.

You might ask the same thing about "professional" vs. "hobbyist." Is there a desire to hide that information on the part of hobbyists? Yes, and no. It's a desire not to pose a false dichotomy because of previous expectations by the player. Valg is, for instance, clearly a skilled administrator. Text MUDs are too difficult to recruit players for for someone incompetent to build a decent sized playerbase. But when you put the words 'professional' and 'hobbyist' side by side, one looks bad and one looks better, just like when you selectively present other types of information.

I've stated, for instance, over and over and over, that I have no problem with full disclosure of revenue models relating to the MUDs, though I believe that includes things like a MUD paying for its server bills by charging players for things whether in game or out of game.

And I mean, we have entire web pages devoted to paying real money, linked from the front page of all of our games' websites. New characters are automatically told about credits after they're out of the newbie intro or almost right away if they choose not to do the newbie intro. If we were interested in hiding information, why the heck would we do any of that?

Why would I post in the forums on TMS saying, "We are commercial. You can buy credits from us" if we were interested in hiding information? Look, I said it again!

Anyway, Kavir is probably right insofar as the easiest and fairest way to do this is just to remove the option to select "pay for play" and make no comment about business model. I'm ok with that or truly full disclosure about revenue models.
--matt

I guess you missed the latter half of Draeloth's post. In it he correctly states that the business model I intend to use (every business model, for that matter) relies on people knowing that it exists. I wasn't going to post off-topic and talk about how my project is related, but thanks for turning the spotlight.

- Ryan

I guess I could stir up a little debate about your wording there. For instance, does paying the MUD $20 for your own unique clothing (non-armor) necessarily influence the game play? It's something you wear. Does paying the MUD a few dollars to have your own unique weapon necessarily influence gameplay when more powerful weapons can exist in the game?

I liked your other three suggestions. They would be more feasible. But then again is it necessary? No, I think the consumer can find out that information on his/her own.

What it really amounts to is that everyone in this thread "gets it." Some people are just choosing to pretend that they don't get it, or that they do get it but "it" doesn't matter.

It's all very farcical, childish, and silly. God forbid people argue in an honest and non-theatrically-faux-ignorant way against something.

The problem here is that every MUD involving money has their own degree of requiredness.

Aardwolf gives donating players a special amulet with some minor stat boosts, although this is more in recognition than the player 'buying' the amulet. For most people, the donation is done to donate, not for this amulet. Is that pay to play?

With IRE paying money is optional, but without it it would be incredibly difficult for one to become successful in PvP combat (although one can still have a great time in the game without paying a cent).

Threshold charges $50 to play, and then you can play forever.

MUD2 costs about $10/month to play.

The list goes on. Every MUD would require their own category.

If anything was to be changed I think that there should simply be a button that is '100% Free' for MUDs to click if real money has absolutely no effect on the game, and another which is 'Recurring fee to play' for muds such as MUD2 where you have to pay per month/hour/week/whatever. Everything inbetween could leave it blank and as such, nothing would show up in that field (such as if you don't check the 'support ansi box' it doesn't say 'Doesn't support ansi' ). Even in this case though, there would be problems - I know that if someone offered me 10000 yen for a cool item in my game I'd definitely consider taking the offer, even if before I'd never offered anything for players.

I missed nothing. I merely made a statement in the same condescending immature manner utilized by yourself. Your 'spotlight' statement is further evidence that you have no use for the MUD playing community beyond the ability to line your pocket. I respond in kind to people the same way they address others.

On another note.

I am not a MUD admin I am only a player. I support this system because I believe it is imperative to have as much information as possible when making a decision. IRE is notorious for restricting the flow of information to players. EX: Not allowing the posting of reviews, discouraging the posting of required lessons for learning charts, avoiding disclosure that it is a pay for perk system until in game.

The more information the better.

Actually, we'd check neither. We don't require our players to do either. We've had months (including most of our early years) where player donations didn't cover our expenses, and the ownership covered them out of pocket.

We really are free. I can't emphasize that enough. There are no "Mandatory money donations" or "Requirements to buy".

1) According to the_logos on another thread, Aardwolf sells ""trivia points" for $2/point, and "quest points" at a rate of 25 per $1."

Quest Points get you more access to all of this , and that equipment "is very powerful and often contains special powers such as permanent haste or sanctuary." can get you custom favors other than equipment. Thus, if the_logos's data is correct (I have not independently confirmed this.. if someone from Aardwolf is around, I'd appreciate it), Aardwolf is pay-for-perks, just like IRE, and would check "optional fees".

2) IRE would check only the "optional fees" box. Threshold has a mandatory one-time fee, and is pay-for-perks afterwards. MUD2 has a recurring fee.

So far, all of those fit neatly into one of the four boxes I've proposed.

Well, its motivated by a desire to make IRE's games look bad and send players instead to other games on the list.

There are a few differing motivations here. Valg wants to get further up the charts, and thus get more referals. KaVir is spiteful and wants to hurt Matt in any way he can manage. Sinuhe seems to have anger management issues. On this issue, they don't actually care about players being supposedly mislead at all, or the health of the community, or anything else that is being churned out by their bleeding hearts. The arguments are obviously fueled by their own motives.

-H

Yup! I've even directly stated this before.

Of course, the only way we'd move up the charts by such a change is if new people come to the site and see "Oh. This other game involves optional/mandatory fees. I'd rather check out this free one." Also, these people would have to outnumber the people who prefer a pay-for-perks scheme because it lets them exchange money they have for time they don't.

I can't twist a player's arm and make them check out my site. But I can ask that the important information is made available up front.

If accurate, honest disclosure of information moves more people to my site (and Armageddon's site, and piles of other free options...), what is bad about that? It's better than the current concealment of that information.

(P.S.: Regarding your KaVir jab, you're aware that the_logos and KaVir agree on this issue, right?)

Yeah, I specifically suggested removing the 'pay-per-play' option out of spite, because I knew it would force Matt to leave his mud listings exactly the way they are. Matt's outrage at this obvious attempt to hurt his mud is readily apparent by his response: "Anyway, Kavir is probably right insofar as the easiest and fairest way to do this is just to remove the option to select "pay for play" and make no comment about business model. I'm ok with that or truly full disclosure about revenue models."

Moron.

Here's another spiteful suggestion: How about adding a text box called "payment model", which is completely optional. You can leave it blank, or fill it in, but if you fill it in it must be both truthful and complete - you can't say "completely free" if there's a registration fee, but you can say "one-off registration fee, then free to play". Other options might be "free to play, but you can buy out-of-game accessories such as t-shirts and mugs via the website" or "free to play, pay for perks, but perks can also be earned through non-payment activities".

Hardestadt @ Feb. 15 2006,10:38
It's funny how you know so much about other people's motives, Hardestadt. Next I suppose you will claim that Matt's motives are purely altruistic?

The proposed information should be valid and desirable for a majority of players. Unfortunately the majority of players don't post to, or even read, discussion boards, so we won't hear from them here.

From a player's point of view, the reasons for wanting this type of info are very clear and straightforward. Most of the posters on this board seem to get it. The ones that don't, or pretend that they don't, clearly have 'their own motives' too.

Actually the violent opposition from certain mud owners against a system that to most people would seem logic, fair, correct and infomative makes me wonder what lies behind it.

It strikes me that a solution was proposed on a previous thread might actually fit the TMS listings a little better. Instead of having 10 boxes each with their own twisted little meaning, it would be very simple to have two boxes

() Commercial
() Noncommercial

Now it may not be outwardly clear to players exactly what this means for each specific game BUT it does clarify who is running their game as a business and who is running it as a hobby (not making a living off of it). I personally don't think it needs to get any more complicated than that. The players can take whatever inference they want from the boxes and the information would be accurate.

Ytrewtsu

To quote Anitra:
This is really what it comes down to.  If money has an impact on gameplay in the MUD, then people searching for a MUD to play should know that up front.  It's as simple as that.

Of course people like myself, Valg and every other administrator from a truly free MUD have slightly selfish reasons for wanting this pointed out.  We want people to play our games, and we find it completely disingenuous that games that involve cash money get away with advertising themselves as free (or not telling people there is money involved until you're already immersed, which is nearly as bad).  Likewise, of course administrators like logos will fight against having it pointed out, because giving all of the information up-front to people seeking MUDS to play would be bad for their business.  There's a vast difference between pointing out that you can buy things with cash once you're already in the game or captivated by their website, and pointing it out when you're looking at a list of all the muds available to play.

Oh, and Claiming that Carrion Fields counts as a "pay for perks" MUD because someone could potentially cheat AND potentially not get caught and denied by the staff is one of the most ludicrous things I've read here.

Doesn’t something stick in your craw at the thought of others deciding how to label your MUD? Can you imagine MUD police visiting your game and deciding your world is “Mostly Stock” instead of “Mostly Original”? Or that roleplay is not “Mandatory” but only “Encouraged”? Or deciding that your category should be “Dungeons and Dragons” and not “Forgotten Realms”? How about if someone decides to describe your MUD for you? Wouldn’t you be outraged? I sure would.

And that’s what bothers me whenever this discussion about how to label MUDs comes up. People decide to make up all sorts of labels: pay to pay, pay for perks, optional pay for perks, donations accepted, donations sometimes accepted, optional donation with optional perks that may or may not have an impact on gameplay, mostly free, free but really greedy capitalist pigs in disguise, absolutely free, really really (and I mean REALLY) free, 100% super duper A++ freer-than-you-can-possibly-imagine-in-a-zillion-years FREEEE.

And after making up these labels, some of which are confusing and not obvious, there is an attitude that, “Well, you MUST accept the labels that I in my wisdom have ruled will cover all MUDs. No, I don’t care how you want to describe your MUD. You must use MY labels. And if you don’t use them, then you are a big poopie faced liar who won’t play by my rules which obviously makes you a BIG evil meanie who should be shunned!”

For those who are pushing for these labels, you have to eventually ask yourself, are you or aren’t you asking for the MUD police to enforce your label system? If so, will the MUD police also enforce other labels regarding RP, PK, genre, etc.? If not, then the labels you make up must be embraced by those whom you want to label or else they will decide not to use those labels. And if you know the games your labels are targeting dislike the labels, isn’t it a losing battle?

Just some rambling thoughts.

That's pretty much exactly how the audits work on TMC, and they seem to do okay.

How would you feel if every stock mud out there listed itself as having a custom codebase with a completely original world, unrivelled gameplay, etc, etc, etc?

It honestly bothers me very little if a MUD describes itself however it wants. If someone wants to say that the "mob factory" is their claim to fame original concept, more power to them!

Regarding TMC, you may be right but I only ever recall their 'audit' being they checked that the MUD exists and that it is somewhat accurate with regard to players online. I'd be very surprised if they audited things like "extended race select", "multi-classing allowed", "newbie friendly", etc. Do they really count the number of rooms in every MUD listed to audit the world size?

Can you honestly say that if someone put up a purely stock DIKU MUD, copied Lusternia's feature list, and registered their stock mud on TMS using Lusternia's description verbatim (outside of replacing all occurances of Lusternia with OwnzorMUD), you wouldn't be the least bit outraged?

It's a serious question. I'd be outraged, but I'm not exactly Gandhi.

Not if there were reasonable standards. For example, we list Carrion Fields as a ROM derivative, because we are, no matter how little original ROM code survives. If we advertised ourselves as "Original codebase" or "SMAUG", we'd be lying, and I don't expect the community at TMS to tolerate that.

A number of years ago, we had to list our game as "Mostly original" areas, because we had a few stock leftovers. Instead of lying about it, we took the time to cut or replace all of those areas so that we had a world where every area was written for CF. Then, after it was done, we changed out setting so that the listing stayed accurate.

If someone claims "Our MUD is the greatest!", that's clearly a subjective statement, and you're free to make that judgement for yourself. But "IRE games accept optional fees which impact gameplay" is not a subjective statement.

TMS bills itself as a "one stop MUD resource". Why not allow a browsing player to know what kind of commercial model your game uses?

This doesn't really seem relevant to me.  For starters, everyone has input into how the muds are labeled on TMS, through threads like these.  Secondly, we're on the TMS site, so it's up to the TMS people how they label things.

Also, labeling a mud as "free" or "involves money" is hardly some abstract label the communists came up with.  The only reason all those labels exist that you brought up, is because muds that aren't really free keep trying to pass themselves off as free.  That makes the muds that are free for real try to make their label stand out so people understand that, hey, we're really free.  Unlike those people who advertise themselves on the surface as free to get you to come check them out but aren't.

And finally, there are no "mud police".  When it comes to your own literature, you can label yourself however you like.  If someone goes straight to your website and you write "Free!" all over it when it's really not, that's your business.  What's at stake here is how TMS lets you be labeled on their site.  I would argue that it's vital to the integrity of TMS as a whole that they label muds correctly, even if the mud staff is trying to pass themselves off as something they aren't.

The way your boogeymen muds label themselves is actually an industry standard. Don't believe me? Check out the site for . So all arguments of morality aside, its not an uncommon practice.

That being said, I'm wondering if the Carrion Fields boys will be labelling their mud as "Optional payments may influence gameplay.", since it appears they're using a business model of their own. From their site:Now I would be very surprised if they could look me straight in the face and tell me that players with a carrionfields address don't have a bit more respect and influence within the game.

Now obviously the IRE and Carrion Fields business models -are- different, but its mostly a question of scale. The problem I have with this proposed change is that the terms are ambiguous, charged with preconceptions, and being created with a specific target in mind. And like Estarra astutely pointed out, its a losing battle if those targets disagree with the terms.

- Ryan

p.s. I'm glad "Traveler" chimed in with the player perspective. But can anyone point out to me a forum topic on the TMS site where a player complains that they were deceived into playing an IRE game and now feel victimized?

My main point was that perhaps--just perhaps!--it might be somewhat reasonable to defer to MUD administrators on how they want to describe their MUDs. I think almost all choices that TMS and TMC offer to describe their MUDs are optional for this reason. In any event, my other point is that if “business model” labels are really necessary, perhaps allow the MUDs for whom the label is targeted to decide on what that label is. Call me crazy, but I think that’s more in the spirit of what a “community” should engender rather than forcing unwanted labels upon others.

Ok, I'll go away now....

I'll look you straight in the face and tell you that players with a carrionfields.com address don't have any more respect or influence within the game.

This is because characters don't have email accounts associated with them. We don't use a registration process, and we don't collect personal information. In short, the staff can't even tell if a character has one of our email addresses.

Donations arrive with a person's real name, taken from the credit card or other method of payment, and a contact email address in case something goes wrong (and for a thank-you email if it doesn't). They aren't tied to a character in any way, and the process of donating doesn't use the MUD-- it's a PayPal link from our website.

Nice research skills, chief.

Similarly, "Carrion Fields is run as a hobby" is not a subjective statement, or "Carrion Fields sells things related to in-game play." is not a subjective statement. Funny how the only things you push for are selective disclosure of the arrangements around revenue generation. I've already said I'm fine with -full- disclosure, and that includes that kind of thing you guys do to generate revenue.

Why not allow a browsing player to know whether they're going to be getting an experience put together by hobbyists or professionals or whether or not the server security has been vetted by a trusted third party like Security Metrics? You're not pushing for providing "all" information. You're pushing for providing very selective information. Why is that I wonder.

Again, as long as the checkboxes accurately reflect all the existing and potential subtle variations, I'm ok with it. Your list, however, didn't, and, conveniently, as soon as it was pointed out that something in the list may apply to Carrion Fields, you changed your reasoning for that list item from "OOC influences" to "admin policy."

--matt