That's rather insulting, Brody.
The 'little guys,' as you termed them, are always ten times better than the 'big cheaters,' nee top twenty five.
I'm sure that if they want to advertise, they'll do it themselves.

This is a rather broad and unsubstantiated generalization. For the record, Dartmud has never offered any incentives for voting, and has been in the top 20 for some time.

As I am very, very close friends with the woman who owns Cat's Haven, it is indeed my business.
As I said before, I'm sure that if they want to be advertised, they shall advertise themselves. And Cat's Haven is hardly a 'little guy.'

I'm starting to believe that you cannot see how tasteless you are.

These games are "underdogs" in the sense that they aren't in the Top 20 and don't show much sign of getting there against the likes of Achaea.

If I take *my* time to pick out some from the lower ranks and give them some front page exposure - free advertising - on a daily basis, I *hardly* think that can be considered tasteless.

It's not meant to be insulting. If you take it that way, I'm sorry, but you've got some issues that need working out.

I wish you the best.

I don't know a single MU* that, to ANY capacity, wants to be like Achaea. If they want advertising, than they will advertise for themselves. And I doubt many people are going to trust the word of someone who hasn't even played on these MU*'s.
Clearly, Brody, I do have problems: my sense of morals and my respect for other's privacy amongst them.

No offense Alajha, but you don't see the folks who run these MUDs posting in heartbroken-tear-jerking sentences because Brody picked someone not in the Top Twenty and said something nice about them.

He didn't even review them and offer some down sides to their MUD. He gave them free positive exposure. You just come off as someone with an axe to grind not somone protecting the dignity of these other muds. If you are going to have a cause to promote at least promote it when it makes sense.

...privacy? Good heavens, I'm not posting anyone's RL information. If a game doesn't *want* to be known, and doesn't *want* to be on the list, there's an easy way to keep it quiet: Don't get listed.

As OnyxFlame said, I'm just helping out as I can. If *you* don't appreciate it, I'm sorry. You're welcome to your opinion. But it's as much my right to post about these intriguing games as it is your right to gripe about my doing so.

Again, sorry if you're having such a negative kneejerk reaction to it, and I wish you the best, but I'll continue doing it.

Why do you lump the alleged practices of Achaea in with MU*s being able to advertise for themselves?
I know for a fact that many muds (including the one I build for) can only afford their hosting fees.  ANY advertising, mention, objective review, or even a pat on the back the way Brody is doing in pointing out the people who deserve a second look is much appreciated by those of us who may never again see the Top 20.  I also applaud Brody.  He makes no judgment on the MU*s he lists, he simply points out a couple interesting features.  Any who are interested can go and form their own opinions.  
And any mud which places a link here and expects privacy is seriously in need of common sense.  If someone gives them a fair, and objective, critical review, would that be offencive as well?

--QS

*pat pat* Awwh, are the grapes just a little too far out of reach for you?

--matt

Sorry Folks,

I just hated the way this came out the first time.

->edit here->
I just went and looked again at TMS 100 and didn't realize how little votes you need to get into the voting. There seems to be good competition in the 80-100 range!


Your doing good service for Mudding by speaking of lower ranking MUDS IMHO. Keep it Up!

Thanks again,

Klered
implementor

Actually the word "underdog" has two meanings:

1) A loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest.

2) A victim of injustice or persecution.

It has nothing to do with being the "best".

So basically, Brody is posting his "Loser of the Day award". Indeed rather insulting, but he's perfectly entitled to his opinion. Of course if he doesn't want to cause offense, he might try changing the name to "Overlooked mud of the day", or "Random mud of the day".

KaVir, I like or at least respect just about everything you've *ever* said. Not that. Your inference (and anyone else's) that this is meant to be a slam on the MUDs I spotlight is your own. Here's the definition I get from my trusty pal, dictionary.com:<ul>1) One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.
2) One that is at a disadvantage.[/list]Myself, I follow Definition No. 2. The games I spotlight are disadvantaged from the standpoint of visibility on the list. In an effort to give them some advantage, I post about one each day.

I think some folks can get a little too carried away with politically correct wording. My hometown team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, were underdogs going into the Super Bowl. Yet they came out on top. Underdogs are those you may not expect to succeed, but really can, if given the opportunity to shine.

Sorry if anyone has wildly differing/demeaning definitions, but those are *your* issues. Not mine.

I for one think it's a great idea. The more exposure the better.

As an admin of an underdog mud that as this point isn't on the top 100 (it was a while ago), I have to say I like the idea. I do promotions for my mud, but I can only do so much, someone singling out my mud to point out one good feature gives me a leg up as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't say you were intending to slam the muds, I just said that that's how some people will interpret it. I also pointed out that you are free to make your posts regardless of how those people feel - although (as you are presumably trying to help these people) you need to realise that you're quite possibly going to cause offense.

The definition I took came from the Merrian Webster online dictionary (), but the two are close enough. You could just as easily use the definition of "loser":

1 : one that loses especially consistently
2 : one who is incompetent or unable to succeed; also : something doomed to fail or disappoint

Then just claim that you're following the first definition - which is almost invariable true in the context of these boards.

However you should remember that many people don't particularly care about the voting. They don't consider their mud to be a "loser" or an "underdog" just because they didn't get their votes up. Realms of Despair is rank 67, yet it has currently has around 400 players online, and I doubt it considers itself an "underdog".

I have decided some of you people do not mud enough. You spend time instead nit picking over word definitions instead of honest judgement of situations. Brody did not by any written tone of voice or statement insult any of the MUDs he picked.

I assume people who play word games like this would be the same people who, if I made a post praising to the heavens certain things about the black community, would come down on me because I said black and not african-american or whatever the latest politically correct term is supposed to be.

Do certain words blind your judgement to the positive impact of such messages? If I say "Underdog", can you not stop yourself from finding some insult in it, even if I said your MUD was the greatest thing since sliced bread?

Use your reason and your heart. Someone who sacrifices his own time to promote lesser known muds is not insulting them.

And I still have yet to hear the creators from these MUDs say a thing about it. Looks like they aren't insulted by free advertising on Top Mud Sites either.

Having official TMS reviews is something I've discussed with Synozeer, when the site goes through a redesign process it's something he's considering doing...

Weird how people can turn a high-five into a kick in the nuts, eh?

Go Brody. I think it's a good idea, and applaud you for taking the time to do it. Cheers.

I think we all got what he meant by underdog as well, eh? Some people just gotta pick at things...

Once more, Brody, Rock on brotha.

Informative (proper) reviews are great, and are frequently useful to prospective players. Something along these lines would be a very nice feature to have on TMS.

But such a review should actually give some information about the mud, not just say "this is a fantasy mud" and then try to get players to play it out of some sense of pity for this "poor unpopular mud". If I wanted to read posts like that, I'd go to the "rants & raves" section of TMS.

"Excuse me, Sir - do you think you could you spare a player? Our coder is sick, and our frail old builder is worn out from long hours in front of a screen, and we are only just able to cover the cost of our hosting provider with these food tokens, but we try to scrape by as best we can. Show some pity on a poor little mud?"

If stock muds have had to resort to begging to gather attention, then I can't help but shake my head in bemusement. But please, leave me and my muds out of it - I don't need sympathy or pity to attract players. If they're not interested in playing based on the quality of the game itself, then fair enough.

No. So why portray them as beggers?

Picking muds at random is fine - but picking those you feel are losers^H^H^H^H^H^H"underdogs" is just insulting. It's like its some sort of consolation prize.

Exactly. So why portray them as such, rather than just writing reviews of randomly selected muds?

Exactly. So why imply that they are somehow inferior to the other muds?

Good work, Brody. As a player on some of the lesser-known muds, it's good to see you're looking beyond the top 20 and giving recognition to the places some or most people have never heard of before. Even one of your top muds has caught my interest and am currently enjoying the experience there.

As for others, really...if a mud Brody picks as something he personally finds interesting...has a problem with him doing it, they may as well take it up with him. No need for people leaping to defend the "honor" of the little known muds when they didn't ask for it. They are capable of handling their own in that department, most likely.

Which, naturally, brings up: "Well, they can advertise on their own, too." Sigh.

These are Brody's personal picks and good for him. Yes, nobody asked him to do it. To me, it's become "mud awareness"...good for him. There's more to gaming than just the top 20.

If anything, this helps out the mud community.

And honestly, if a mud didn't want to be advertised, they wouldn't have listed with TMS in the first place.

So, unless the admin of one of these muds Brody brings up takes up issue with him, why stone him?

Good work again and I look forward to more.

John, I've never objected to people reviewing muds - and I agree that it's nice to give attention to those who aren't at the top of the list. All I've been saying is that there's no need to infer that those muds are "losers" just because they're not at the top of some vague popularity list. If you want to review them, then do so on their own merits, not out of pity - because any self-respecting mud shouldn't need to rely on sympathy to make itself stand out.

So in short, while I'm all for something like "hidden gems of the mud community" which lists various less-known muds and provides a clear review summarising what they have to offer, I find little benefit in a "loser of the day" award which doesn't even tell you why the mud is worth checking out.

Of course, for those people who's muds really don't have anything special to offer, I can certainly see why they're happy to be mentioned at all.

Fair enough Kavir. And I knew you hadn't objected.

err....gosh! you personally objected to this thread but didn't use your mod powers to do something about it. IMO that shows integreity.

Brody's INTENT was never to have the games looked at as a loser, and honestly, until someone brought up that connotation it wasn't even an issue...

Let it freaking drop, let Brody continue on with what he's doing, regardless of what he wants to call it, and freaking move on, there's honestly nothing left to debate on this topic.

But that's the way it comes across to a lot of people.

I've said from the start that it's up to him to post whatever he likes. I'm just pointing out that if he's trying to help people, he should reconsider the way he phrases his posts - because many people will take it as an insult.

I think everyone can stop pointing out things about the whole issue now honestly, the horse is dead. Brody has posted three Underdog Muds and we've already strung this out to 4 ages, that's really honestly sad...

***Edited to stop the debate***

Point 1: Brody himself has admitted that he has not played these MUDs.

Point 2: Brody has not stated the reasoning why he advertises for these MUDs.

Point 3: Human nature normally would dictate that people do something for something, not something for nothing.

Now, let me get this straight. Brody is advertising for MUDs who he has never played, and just randomly picks. No review, no reason to check them out, just, "Their ranking sucks! Check them out!".

There's got to be a reason he's doing this. Someone care to speculate? (And if someone spouts up with the "out of the goodness of his heart" garbage, wouldn't he actually bother to play the MUD and review it, rather then just pick something at random?)

-D

Well I'm going to beat everyone to saying it, and say "so he gets good PR which will cause people to check out his mud" *rolls his eyes*

Well I personally had no idea what mud he was on until it was said here.

And really, does any ONE person have enough times to review these muds? How much time is a fair enough time? Some muds are hard to start, but are REAL good once you get into it.

Ah. I see.

So, it is to feed your own ego, as well as attain indirect advertising for your own projects then, Brody.

You'll have to pardon me if I'm rather undernethused with your whole scheme - all of your "underdog"/"loser" MUDs have a chance to advertise on the front page, just the same as you do. They choose not to do it. You choose to do it.

And, let me say this. I will never play any MUD that you've put on your precious underdog listing so far. I may not be the only one. Isn't that having the exact opposite effect you are hoping for? Or...could it be a potential intended effect?

Who knows. If it is intended, Brody'd never admit it./

-D

Uh. Right, Dulan. I don't already feed my ego with my columns or my games. I need to come to Top MUD Sites and mention other people's games in the hopes of somehow hornswaggling unsuspecting readers to my own games. It's all a one-man conspiracy. Thank you for pointing out the error in my ways.

Look, I write plenty about my games - in separate topics. Whether you believe my motives or not is immaterial. That you find them suspect is unsurprising. That far more people appreciate what I'm doing than honk off on it keeps it alive.

I'll gladly accept fan mail at from folks who are GLAD Dulan won't be showing up if I print their game's information.

Heh. Amusing, Brody.

People who connect thie 'Dulan' persona to my actual, real gameplaying persona..-shake- Yare yare.

However, that response of yours basically confirmed my gut feeling. You have an ulterior motive, and you are not doing this just to get some "underdog" MUD on the front page of TMS.

While several previously stated hunches are partially correct, based on that reaction, none have directly hit the target yet.

Someone else care to help me speculate on his true motives? I'm drawing blanks here.

-D

If you are going to PM me to do something, Brody, and then promptly shout out what it is.....

Yare yare ^.^.

-D, "Rhetorical? For real? Who knows!"

Ulterior motives? How about wanting to make the mud community more of a community? I personally don't see how any of the posts regarding the motives of Brody or the meaning of the word underdog have anything to do with advertising for players. Brody has posted per the guidelines of this forum but we have at least one forum moderator posting completely off topic? This is not a flame board so why not let the post be as it is in line with the guidelines set forth by Synozeer.

Ytrewtsu