The sword of truth mud, called sotmud, is a diku mud derivitive using key elements from Mume and Wotmud. We are currently atempting to futher emulate those muds and are recoding elemnts of the c into c++ to take advantage of the library. We're also writing a custom language to add extentions to the mud. We need one good coder, or maybe a few decents ones we can teach. Coders are always given one rank below implementership. As always creating a mud with over 1153 planned zones needs builders:) Come show up. At sotmud.genesismuds.com port 4000. Soon to be somtud.org port 4000 (when the box gets up.)

I'd highly recommend learning to use the English language before trying to learn a programming language. It may help there. Or look for people that know about a certain programming language, as this case may be.

-D

what an utterly unconstruvtice thing to say, thats also very mean.

what an utterly unconstruvtice thing to say, thats also very mean.
What do you mean anyways, my english is that bad, the post was writen quikly.

And that post is what everyone sees that hears/considers working for your MUD.

Think about that. First impression. Bad. That sorta thing?

-D

Just out of idle curiosity, what exactly do your "implementors" do, if the implementation is done by lower-level staff?

I rather resent that remark. It mirrors the usual arrogance of Coders. Being a Builder myself, I work harder than most imms. In my opinion the zones are just as important for a mud as the code. I have an imp position with full shell access. You are sort of implying that Builders don't deserve an imp position.

As for Ritaker's mud, they might well have been developing it for quite some time, and just want more coders to speed up the work. If that is the case I can well understand why a new coder wouldn't automatically get a top position.

That said, hiring coders 'from the street' is a rather dumb and extremely risky thing to do. It still amazes me why mud owners trust people they don't even know the first thing about with full shell access, and then complain on Discussion boards a couple of months later, because the mud was stolen, lock stock and barrel, from under their very nose.

It has nothing to do with arrogance, or with how much work you put in, but with the simple definition of the word "implementor". If you don't code, you're not implementing, ergo you're not an implementor. You might be an admin - you might even be the owner - but if you're not implementing, you're not, by definition, an implementor.

Put it another way, if one of your staff spent lots of time running really great quests on your mud, and worked really hard, would you allow them to call themselves a "builder" - even if they didn't actually build anything?

I guess I'd just point out that Wizard's Realm is a well established Sword of Truth mud. It's been open for about two years and is quite popular.
bt5.iwvisp.com
port 6667

Thankyou:) I code but like help. Rewriting a mud is hard. And before I trust someone I test them:) Coders are also paid cash for there work. That said, (dedicated) builders imo are just as important as coders.

Joy.

We've got a new license violating MUD. -sigh-

When will people ever bother to read and comprehend the license to their damn base?

-D

thats not in violation of anything. Its me paying for work. No profit is being made by the owners.

....

You clueless? Profit being made on any part.

That includes profit being made by the coders. Re-read the damn license, boy.

-D

Implementor
to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures

If the game was built on 2 servers, as in a development and production environment.

Then coders would write code on the dev machine and you'd need implementors to actually move the approved code from there to production. Not all coders would be implementors (and not all implementors would be coders) as you may not want too many people with access to the production environment.

I dont think this is how it is done in the mud in question, just how it could possibly make sense to have an implementor and coder as seperate deptartments of administration.

*shrug* Then again, up until now I thought it was spelled and pronounced implementator.

On the issue of paying a programmer:

Quoted from an e-mail to myself on the subject, from Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt:
So, Dulan, your statements that he would violate the license by paying a coder is inaccurate. He is in no way violating the license by doing so.

But, as we can see from the above, unless under special conditions, the coder would be violating the license.

So, more or less, this comes down to how it is done. And, it can be done without breaking the license, as Mr. Stærfeldt mentioned in his message on the subject.

I've spoken to Hans-Henrik on the same subject several months ago, Orion.

He stated that even by saying "you'll get X books per year for being on staff" was not only against the license's wording, but against its spirit. I really doubt that he'd do a complete 180, and then change it from "even offering bubblegum is not okay" to "yeah, it's fine" in a couple months.

I'll dig up that email in a bit.

-D

Yes, Dulan, I think you'd better dig up that e-mail. If you are going to virtually call someone a liar, you should be prepared to back it up with hard facts.

I guess this is a case of semantic. My wordbook defines Implement as 'accomplish, achieve' or 'to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures'. Within that definition, Builders implement too. When I put the zones I made in the game and connect them to the rest of the world, I am implementing them.

Most likely Implementor was a title first used for the coders in the mud world. To most people in the mudding community today however, I think Implementor mainly means RANK - the top guy in the mud, whatever their actual background may be. Rather like an Executive or a Director is the one that carries out the actions and decisions, based on the job mostly done by others in a firm. The Director of an Engineer Company does not necessarily need to be an engineer, the Director of a hospital does not need to be a doctor. All Implementors are de facto not coders, even if most of them know at least something about code. And the Mud owner is always Implementor, since that is top rank.

As for Questors I really admire their work and it is very important for the mud, but they are in fact not creating anything that lasts, therefore by definition would not be Builders, and I actually see no reason why they would want to call themselves that either - unless of course they build too. It could well be that had Questor had Implementor's rank on a mud however, even though I also see little reason for a Questor to have shell access, unless he also does some coding or building

But an implementor is still, by definition, someone who implements stuff within the mud.

But they're not calling themselves engineers or doctors - they're calling themselves directors. And a director, by definition, is someone who directs - just as an implementor is someone who implements.

That depends on what codebase you're using. Some stock codebases do actually come with "implementor" as a title for the top level immortal, but that's not really any more accurate than muds which have "builder" as a title for a specific immortal level (unless all builders are literally of that specific level).

Which is exactly the same way as I feel about implementors. I suppose the quest makers could argue that they were helping "build" the popularity of the mud by running quests for the players, but that's not the real meaning of "builder" - just as someone who doesn't implement features isn't fulfilling the real meaning of "implementor".

Please provide the e-mail. But, either way... what you doubt is of no consequence here. The facts are the only thing of consequence here, and the facts are posted above in my quoted message. I received that message on 08/15/2002 at 5:45AM.

He has also told me that, for example, if you gave someone quest points for doing graphics for the MUD's website that you have not broken the license. Michael Seifert backed him up on this:

Hans-Henrik Stærfeldt, received 06/25/2001 at 3:19AM:
Michael Seifert, received 06/23/2001 at 10:25AM:
So, again, what you doubt is of no consequence here.

Edit:
Added dates to e-mails. All e-mail dates are in EST.

Oh, and on the subject of an implementor, an implementor would be a coder or a builder. Anyone who puts something into the game, be it code or areas. Technically, anyway.

Basically, anyone who produces something concrete.

Well? Care to repeat that? This is a verbatim email, with all the important details removed. (Sorry, guys, but I'm not giving some twink Hans-Henrik's email. He'll have to find it out somewhere other than I.)

-D

Don't need to repeat a thing. My e-mail is almost a year newer than your own, and furthermore:

I repeat:
"This is the main purpose of the license."

The main purpose of the license is to prevent you from charging for the use of the game and/or parts of the game. Hans-Henrik stated that. Are you in trouble for giving them prizes? No. You're trying to skirt that issue. Are they for accepting? Possibly... but, there are ways around it (one such way Suggested by Hans-Henrik) that are perfectly legal. Again, you try to skirt that issue.

I won't continue to argue the point, though, because without more evidence (which, btw, I have provided in abundance, and from more than one member of the Diku team), it's pointless to continue doing so.

-shakes head sadly-

Yet again, you jump on an irrelevant point to the conversation, and try to divert it. Straw-man argument, Orion.

-pat- I'd write out a flame, but I've given up putting the effort in to flame you. You make extensive use of irrelevant information/straw man attacks, bud.

-D

... The point of your whole argument is that ritaker is violating the Diku license, which Hans-Henrik has stated quite clearly that in no WAY is he violating that license by offering to pay, and furthermore even if he DID give them money he didn't violate the license. The only one who MIGHT be violating the license is the one who ACCEPTED the money, and there are legal ways around that.

But, this is a straw-argument, right... addressing your statements directly, providing evidence that proves you wrong, and all that. *ROFL*

You're simply trying to attack the basis of my argument because you're wrong and you can't handle it. Grow up.

So the other day, at a convention for the mud I run, my good friend Rod and I play a game of Magic with a couple of good-hearted kids from Wadsworth, Ohio. Now, besides the fact that they put crack and mercury in the water there to ensure everyone is totally brain-messed, what ends up is a 4+ hour game leading up to around 9:30am when we decide to just quit.

Now, why did we quit? The two Wadsworthians spent nearly 90% of the time arguing over the rules, the cards, how they're being played, antics, unspoken rules, name calling, past aggressions, and nearly anything else they could find to bitch about.

My point? I swear every thread on here comes down to the same thing. It reminds me of the Simpsons where some geeky guy asks Homer and the Itchy and Scratchy lady how in Episode #something-or-other, when Itchy pulls out Scratchy's skeleton to play it like a xylophone, he distinctly hits the same rib twice, but it made obviously two different sounds. Are we to believe this is some kind of magical, make-believe xylophone?

You are a make-believe xylophone!!!

lol, it started out as a small conversation and turns into Dulan war 2, heh.

Heh. Amusing, Orion. I point out your straw man-usage, and you actually make an effort to attack me based on my points then.

Yes, my statement was incorrect. It is not the MUD itself that is the license violator - it is the coder. However, KaVir has pointed out this before - if a MUD is willing to hire coders who violate the license so blatantly, it does not say any good things about the MUD.

-D

Ah Yuki,
that was a truly inspired point. However, you're missing one very important benefit of seeing arguments like this. Anytime I get frustrated with some of the stupid arguments and petty name calling that I see on a seemingly daily basis at work I can come here and read pretty much any thread and realize that life really isn't that bad and could be much worse!

Right - however the mud admin is knowingly helping/encouraging them to violate the license, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were putting themselves in a legally dodgy position as well.

After all, if I hired a hitman (or even just a thug to beat you up) I'd find myself in extremely deep trouble. The same if I hired an accountant to fiddle my taxes, or paid someone to steal something.

Yet again, though, the point that it CAN be done legally is ignored. On this point both Hans-Henrik and Katja Gamby (Nyboe) agree.

And your example is flawed, KaVir, as hiring a hitman or an enforcer is illegal... (at least hiring I hitman is, and I'm fairly sure hiring an enforcer is as well) Offering money to someone, to code, is not.

I won't comment on the 'dodginess' of the situation, though, as I honestly don't know... ethically, it might not be as dodgy as you may think. Many people don't think of GIVING someone things to work for them as 'profit.' The fact that others receiving the goods could violate the license probably never enters their mind. Legally, it COULD be a problem, depending on how it is handled.

So, you wanna pay me to code for your DikuMUD? Ok, I'll program the code separately, then integrate said code into your DikuMUD. Simple solution for that is to write code that does what you want. Take the payment for the code. Then install it for free. That makes it legal, and that was the suggestion given by Katja Gamby. I am then being paid for code that has nothing to do with the codebase. I am expressly making it work for that codebase free of charge.

The same can be done for building, if you want to go through the effort of writing the area, taking the payment, then installing the area for free (in this case you're being payed for the 'art', such as base room descriptions, mobile ideas, etc). Then once you finish, simply go in, add the descriptions and tweak the area for that MUD. Again, legal.

Maybe a thread in the legal forum, about this subject, would be a good idea. Would stop the degeneration of this thread into a legal discussion.

For those curious to what Katja Gamby said:

Katja Gamby on 08/16/2002 at 5:33AM EST:
So... basically, do you work separate from the game, put it in the game for free, charge for the work you did before the installation.

Hmm.

Hey, KaVir, doesn't Orion's arguments sorta remind you of Koldryn and his line of arguments?

-shrug- I keep reading his stuff, and have to keep checking back to be sure it's Ori, and not Kold.

-D

I do believe the horse is dead, chopped into pieces, and is now the consistency of thin paste suitable for spreading on crackers. STOP BEATING THE DAMN HORSE AND SHUT UP ALREADY...

Terloch......

Have you ever known the MUDding community to NOT beat a dead horse?

-D

Dulan.....

Only when you're not around.

Heh.

Koldryn, Orion, Koldryn. Even the whole dead horse argument.

(Amusingly enough, it is true. You got me to look at the old saved flames.)

-D