My default understanding of placement on the mud listing would be that the game with the most votes has the most players coming to vote for it therefore has the most enthusiastic player base.

I have found it to be quite the challenge to come here twice every 24 hours to vote for the game I play. Doing it for a few days is no biggy, but doing it every day indefinitely is a lot. Still, I don't mind because I really love the game I play and I enjoy meeting new members. For me newbies have a contagious enthusiasm I find hard to resist.

Still, I don't know how long I'll continue voting at this pace. After all, my primary interest is playing the game not voting for it at every opportunity.

On the other hand, if my game offered me something like say, experience, or wealth, or a chance to win something every time I voted, or a discount on my membership, that would definitely provide more incentive to come and vote every chance I got indefinitely.

I don't really have a preference as to whether or not incentives should be permitted but they do skew the results. Now that at least one game is using incentives to vote it leaves the others in an awkward situation. Many feel that it is a grey area or have condemned the practice as being unethical.

If it is allowed, which it appears to be at this point, I would prefer that it be permitted officially rather than simply not addressed. Other games could then add an incentive that they feel is appropriate to their environment.

If it is officially sanctioned that changes the situation. Games can add incentives without feeling they are somehow doing something borderline unethical. If it is not officially sanctioned, then if a game gets found out they can be reported.

Another option would be for the games which do not offer incentives to specify in their description that they do not offer voting incentives so the ones that do stand out.

I'd prefer voting incentives be against the rules here. Anything else makes the list invalid for its stated purpose.

This site is, and always has been, a popularity list for muds. Personally I would prefer incentives to be banned - but unfortunately nobody has yet been able to come up with a feasible way to do this. I therefore agree with Seraphina - if incentives are not going to be officially banned, I think they should be officially sanctioned, at least until some acceptable solution is found. At least then the voting is on even footing between the muds.

I think you're drawing unwarranted conclusions about what the list means. The list cannot be skewed by any means I'm aware of, since it is set up to measure one thing: Number of unique IPs sent to the site, with a single unique IP able to be registered successfully only once in a 12 hour period. I think Adam may count certain IP ranges as a single IP also, to prevent AOlers and others with dial-up dynamic IPs from disconnecting and then reconnecting to get a different IP and vote again.

The ranking list is basically the same thing as a banner exchange. The more people who you bring to the banner exchange via clicks from your site, the more exposure you get for your site. So from that perspective, which I believe is the objectively accurate perspective, insofar as it describes what is actually being measured, there is no way to skew the site without figuring out a way to somehow scam Adam's software and vote with the same IP multiple times in 12 hours. I'm sure that sort of nonsense would be caught right away though, and it's explicitly against the rules anyway.

To summarize, I don't think it really matters how you get people here. The system is set up to measure the fact that you do get people here, and that's all it measures. It's a you-help-me-I-help-you arrangement with topmudsites that also happens to benefit every mud on the list because it encourages muds to send as many people there as possible, thus exposing other muds to as many people as possible, as many times as possible (which are key metrics in advertising: reach and frequency).

I can understand why people impose secondary meanings on the list, but I think it's a mistake to do so, as they're arbitrarily imposed meanings.

--matt

Incentives are officially sanctioned for the time being. Currently, enforcing a system where no incentives are allowed would be too time-consuming and ripe for abuse.

Imagine if a group of people report that a mud used incentives to get players to vote, and even doctored up a small log to show this is the case. I can get on that mud, but I won't see anything out of the ordinary unless I stay there for long periods of time and get lucky. And I certainly can't punish a mud for doing this unless I have positive proof, which basically means I need to see it myself. The time I'd need to spend to check every accusation (and there would be many) would be too great, and I would have to check *every* accusation, or the system fails at this point.

In a perfect world, it would be great to have the ranking list show which mud is the best and most liked. To do that, the entire ranking system would need an overhaul. TMS (in its current incarnation) is more akin to a banner exchange, where the more visitors you send, the more you receive. While you may have muds at the top of the list who by far send more visitors than other muds, the fact is, the more traffic sent to TMS, the better chance you'll get a new player, even if that traffic is just from someone who is doing it to get some sort of reward.

I am reading all your posts, and I am considering all suggestions, so please don't feel like it's falling on deaf ears - it's not. I simply prefer discussions and debates to play themselves out so I can get the maximum number of viewpoints and ideas. Along those lines, I've been reading the PTP mud discussions, so please keep those ideas coming.

Thanks,
Synozeer

Obviously the results are "skewed" by offering incentives - if they weren't, you wouldn't offer them, nor would your mud have suddenly leaped ahead of all the others. By offering incentives, the percentage of a muds playerbase which will vote increases tremendously. This only provides an accurate indication of the popularity of a mud when compared against other muds which also offer incentives.

I don't feel comfortable offering incentives because I feel it's not "fair play." Yet I know that if I offered incentives in my game we'd be getting many, many times more votes on a daily basis. This puts me in an uncomfortable position.

If you are sanctioning incentives, could that be added to the rules listed on the site?

Melissa Meyer

In that sense then, just listing a MUD skews the list, because your MUD wouldn't be anywhere on the list without listing it first. (Incidentally, Achaea was #3 before we began rewarding our players for voting.) In that sense, skew isn't a bad word. It's like saying that someone who trains hard to win a race is skewing the results. Yes, it's true, he is, insofar as his training is altering the results, but that's not a bad thing.

There's no question that a higher percentage of a playerbase will vote when given an incentive to, but that doesn't skew the results, as the list does not measure the popularity of a MUD. It measures how many people (whether from your MUD or not) you can send here, and how often. It's doing a fine job of that.

Again, it's a mistake to think of topmudsites as some authoritative list on the most popular MUDs. It isn't that, and while there's a correlation (gotta have some players to have votes, regardless of whether you encourage them to vote or not), the strength of the correlation differs across MUDs, so one cannot really draw a conclusion from that. But then, since the site isn't set up to provide you with that conclusion, and since it IS set up to reward a site for bringing the most traffic here, I don't see how anything is being skewed. The site is accurately measuring exactly what it was designed to measure.

--matt

If your mud isn't listed on the list, then it's irrelevent to the list. X% of players will vote for their favourite mud simply because the see the voting button, or have it pointed out to them. Y% of players will vote for their favourite mud because they gain something for doing so.

No, it's like saying that someone who runs a racing team is skewing the results by paying people to run for him, when the other teams are only asking for free volunteers. It's like saying that someone who stands for election is skewing the results by paying people $X if they vote for him, when the other candidates are just asking people to vote. It's like saying that someone who has entered into a competition is skewing the results by paying the judges to give him a better score, when the other candidates are relying on the judges unbiased opinions.

Yes, it does skew the results - because you're measuring the number of players from your mud who will vote in return for an in-game benefit, against the number of players on other muds who will vote because they feel like it. That is not a fair comparison, and thus creates a skewed result. By sanctioning the approach you're using, Synozeer is saying that it's okay for other muds to compete with yours on the same footing. I cannot see why you should have a problem with this.

If paying people to run for your team isn't against the rules, there's certainly nothing wrong with it. Especially when the way the race organizer supports putting on the races directly benefits from better runners.

And why the heck would I have a problem with other people rewarding their players to vote? I don't care if you do that. Bring more traffic here, fantastic. More chances for us to land a new player. More chances for everybody to land a new player. I bet it won't be long before a couple people who were outspoken against the practice and claimed not to care about being #1 start employing it too. And hypocrisy aside, good for them. Helps us all out.

--matt

It's not hypocrisy to be competitive. To dislike something, but be forced to do it in an effort to be competitive isn't hypocrisy. It's sad, is what it is.

My opinion is why not promise to run quests with uber-powerful weapons, if your MUD reaches a certain point on the list. Give out free unlimited sanctuary orbs, super-weapons, and lots of gold. Temporary HP, Mana, and Move boosts, etc.

If someone wants to offer a spell up or a restore for voting, one up them. Offer the above. Just remind me to stay away, because eventually people will be offering free avatars, special classes that can't be picked by a mortals, etc.

I think I'll start giving people an incentive to vote. "If we get in the top 30, I'll give you all a character with 10% more hp/mana/move, and a lower exp base than the rest." *rolls his eyes, and walks away disgusted*

Right - however the results would still be skewed, which was the original point. The only thing I've been arguing for is that everyone be put on equal footing - to use the analogy above, for the race organiser to specifically come out and say that it either is or isn't okay for professional runners to participate.

It's not the practice itself which most of us object to - it is the way that the muds are not being compared on an equal footing. That has now been addressed, and so hopefully the results will start to become less skewed in the future.

Orion, imagine a custom-written mud which was not "pay to play", but not "free" either - instead it was listed as "advert sponsored". Players did not have to pay anything to play, but money for hosting and the like came from banner clicks. In order to play the mud each day, you first had to click on the current advert banner. In this way the mud owners could gain a small income from the mud from the players, but the players wouldn't have to pay anything - just give up a few seconds of their time. Would you have a problem with such a mud?

Yep, I'd agree with that. The more highly ranked you are, the more likely someone coming here is to think highly of your MUD initially. That's exactly what makes the site work. You send the most traffic here, you are likely to get the most traffic back.

--matt

Fine. If we use this logic, then allow one vote per player per voting cycle. I believe that Achaea is the only MUD on the TMS rankings that even has its players voting more than once over a 24 or 48 hour period consistantly as it is, and it severely inflates the vote count compared to other MUDs that do not....cheat.

-D

The current voting system does not even really measure popularity. If the mud was popular enough, no one would want to divert their attention from it long enough to vote for it. Rather, the voting system measures an aggregate of many factors; popularity is just one of them. Among the others are coded incentives, social incentives from the current mud community, how much the current players desire new players (i.e., incentives from projected mudding community), boredom (voting just for something to do)...and we don't want to forget awareness and knowledge. I voted often for the first mud I ever played, simply because it's the only mud I knew much about, so it was by default my "team." Newbies will likely pick a top-20 mud as the first mud they ever play, so this unknowledgeable competitiveness will be in favor of the incumbents, increasing their chance of pulling in yet more newbies to vote for them.

Maybe the question we should be asking is not "Is it fair," but "What do we want it to measure?"

Thank you very much for your answer Synozeer, much appreciated.

To any admins concerned about the ethical or game philosophy aspect of offering rewards for voting I think if you put your minds to it you can come up with an incentive that will not affect game balance or be jarringly OOC.

Over at the game I play I have suggested a monthly drawing. Each vote would count as a ticket or a chance to win. The prize could be getting to play a part in a GM led event. Because DR has so many players, participating directly in an event with GM played characters is by chance, right place right time.

I also suggested that an item, not uber-weapon, or an alteration of an item could be a prize. Within DR we have a huge variety of items to choose from but alterations are highly prized to further individualize one's "look". Again alterations are usually by chance, right place right time.

I prefer the idea of a drawing rather than a per vote or most votes reward. I have no idea if DR will adopt this or any other incentive program because I am just a player.

Mud coders are very creative people. I think if you brainstorm on what sort of reward you could offer that would not conflict with the philosophy of your particular game yet still offer a "thank you" to players you could dream up something appropriate.

A chance to win something for voting doesn't seem to be too radical an incentive to me.

Well then, dear, you're not playing an RPI where all game rewards must be earned IC'ly.  Where no OOC communication is allowed in game and where the very idea of rewarding someone for something ooc is just.... absurd.

This makes me sick.

Why is it that a gentle reminder on a discussion board isn't enough for someone to come vote for your site?  As an admin, I won't even -mention- it to my players.  If they don't want to remember to click on the voting link, then I'm doing something wrong as far as I'm concerned.  Occasionally my players have reminded each other but not me, not ever.

But then I'm one of those admins that doesn't care about being #1, as hard as that is to believe.  My problem with this is that there ARE lots of muds like mine, where to give an IC reward for an OOC action completely detracts from the game itself and pretty much makes a mockery of what an RPI Mud is intended to be.

You're a funny little man. The site owner, who makes the rules, explicitly endorses what we're doing, and you still rant away about cheating. *shrug* Rant away.

As for voting once per 24 hours, why don't you check out the website for Dragonrealms. Note the "Please be sure to vote every 12 hours."

Our players are only rewarded for voting every 24 hours currently, not that it's really any of your business.

--matt

Show me a post in which Synozeer has stated EXPLICITLY that he encourages giving out incentive to vote.

I've as of yet to see it.

-D

"Incentives are officially sanctioned for the time being." - Synozeer.

His first post in this thread. I don't know how much clearer you want it, considering the rules never even implied there was anything wrong with it.

--matt

Many things are legal, yet still frowned upon. Keep that in mind. You can twist the wording of a contract to get something out of it that you want, that was not intended by the creator of that contract. Doesn't make it right.

Also, not quite sure if you noticed, but that sanction was a reluctant one. It's not as if he endorsed it. Only said it was allowed, for the time being, because it couldn't be properly policed. Another thing to keep in mind.

.....Good god, Mihaly. I forgot you took that forum posting as a quote from RPGplanet.net.

Read the context of his message. He definitely implied that the only reason that incentives are allowed is simply because of the time requirements involved.

Several of my suggestions would immediately remedy this. However, all of them that would apply received severe flamings - from Achaea players, mind you. Or so they identified themselves. With, what was it....1 posts? 2 posts?

Eesh. There's a definitely deserving PtP flame here. And it's just ASKING for it. But, I'll be nice today.

-D

-points at Seraphina-

And thus, my thesis about PTP MUDs hath been proved. If it benefits them, they will take anything and everything out of context.

-D

Wow, you might flame PtP MUDs? Your threats are truly frightening in their magnitude and scope. Do you really not have anything better to do than spend your time insulting people constantly on web boards? Most of your posts seem to be all about slamming someone. My fault for replying to any of them I suppose.

--matt

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you are implying. I reread my post and I don't think I misinterpreted or misrepresented anyone's words through selective quoting.

I want to make it clear that I am not an employee of any Mud just a player who enjoys the game I have been playing. I am now looking for a free mud for my daughter and her friends to play as well.

Certainly commercial muds have to take income into account because they are businesses and money is the main point of running a business. The quality of the product is an important aspect of why people buy it so if you are implying they will do anything for a buck you are wrong.

Please refrain from using me or my product as an example to try to make your points.

Sure, our players that are voting are encouraged to vote within the guidelines set up by Synozeer.    Multiple votes within the 12 hour timeframe do nothing but cost Adam extra bandwidth, so they're encouraged to vote once every twelve hours if they're so inclined.

Please don't even THINK of equating that with paying for votes.

Dulan...

Again, I ask that you not lump all of us folks into the same group.

The logic being used baffles me just as much as it does you, I'm sure. Much akin to the same logic used for that RPGPlanet quote, I'm sure.

Eh, sorry Bubba.

Reflex.

But, there's not really a term for Vryce and ilk that I know of. Well, there are expletitives, but I don't think Synozeer wants those used on these boards.

-D

Well, personally I refuse to bribe my players to vote, just as I refused to hassle them to vote before.

If that puts us at the bottom of the list, so be it.

This voting business has all become way too cheesy, and in the last month the list lost all interest for me. I don't even bother to check which muds are on top any more.

The only thing that still makes me come to this site is  the discussion boards, but they seem to be deteriorating a lot too lately.

It's kinda sad to see a good site decline...

At first i was hell bent against MUDs using incentives and wanted it gone simply because it caused a misrepresentation of the game's popularity. After all, the list is called, "Top MUD Sites", not "MUD Sites That Bring in the Most Traffic".

But now, as i see it, if a MUD wants to offer incentives and bug the hell outta players to vote, fine. It must drive the players nuts, but it's likely they don't wanna lose their bonus so don't complain about it. In the end i'd say that players will just get annoyed with it, find the game less fun, and in the end, hurt the game more than help it.

If Simutronics ever did something like Achaea did, to force votes, players would leave. No doubt about it. The *one* IG announcement that the button had be put up caused ALOT of complaints. In fact, there were players upset that they even meantioned it in the news section. Just imagine what a daily IG nagging message would do.

If admins wanna hurt their game by doing this sort of thing, i think it's their problem and they are the one who are gonna have to deal with unhappy players. Let them handle it.

To me it seems they care more about advertizing then the satisfaction of their current players. Think that says alot. Definately not the kinda game i wanna play.

I would be against any rewards for voting and decided that if Dragonrealms did begin that process I would discontinue voting. The reason I vote is to attract players to Dragonrealms. The quality of a game is based in it's code but that is only the base from there it is the people that play the game. Getting noticed on this site is the perfect way to attract quality players, but if it goes beyond that into a battle for #1 then the results will be diminished.

Alaire,

Please don't bundle Simutronic's products in with the likes of Achaea. The producers of Simutronics may manage pay-to-play games, but they do so in an honest and ethical fashion with the interests of their customers and the integrity of their games foremost in their thoughts. I truly believe that is reflected in the products they present.

I actually agree with what you are doing as well. After thinking about it for a couple of weeks, I'm beginning to wonder if it wouldn't be much more beneficial for Simutronic's to remove its links here and boycott this website also. Which makes an ass of me, because I was one of the biggest supporters for getting on this list. I actually added the initial link to DragonRealms here.

As a gamer and longtime customer of Simutronics, I am still very happy to see them advertising their games more. I've felt like they needed to for a while. Maybe it'd just be better to do so with reputable sites and businesses that take themselves seriously and present their content in an open and honest way. I'm just not sure, from my perspective, that the benefit of a few extra players earned is worth being associated in anyway with an operation like this.

The misleading nature of this list and its 'rankings' as presented to unknowing websurfers, and the tasteless cheating being allowed to skew that presentation, is pretty sad. Everyone here can see it, most folks are turned off by it, and respectable people who don't have to stoop to such tactics to survive will feel it is beneath them. Maybe if more of the other MUDs follow suit they'll start to get the picture and make some changes, maybe not. Achaea can have their little bought sandbox all to themselves and Synozeer can enjoy the 'traffic' of a hundred or so of their bribed players racing to vote twice a day. If that is what he actually wants here, then more power to him.

Cemm

We don't offer incentives. That said, I don't think we could, given the structure of our game - players don't get experience, or platinum pieces, or anything like that. We could credit voters in our weekly update, as we do people who submit items or note typos, contribute docs, or whatever, but that seems pretty silly, and difficult to track. Our players vote because they like to see their mud up there in the top ten, and because they know that's one of the ways we get new players.

I think it's sleazy to offer incentives, but again, if it's sanctioned, it's sanctioned, and that's the call of the admins of the individual muds, I suppose, as to whether or not they want to participate in it.

I'm not, and I wouldn't have a problem with you paying your customers to vote. I just think it's odd that since you don't care in the least (your words) about being #1 that you'd encourage your players to vote at all, much less every 12 hours.

What I find a little irritating I guess is that you took such a better-than-thou attitude, claiming you told your players not to vote more than once every 24 hours and so on (I think you claimed this at least. I apologize if I'm getting that bit wrong), and claiming (repeatedly) that you don't care about being #1, though you obviously do.

Again, I have no problem with any conceivable method that you would use to get votes, aside from hacking into Adam's server and deleting your players IP records so that they could vote again.

--matt

If it bugs DR players that's fine and the perogative of their players, but all I have to look at is our playerbase really, which has voiced no problem with it (I've heard exactly two complaints about it from our players, and gotten tons of messages of the "thanks for doing this!" tone), and which encourages each other to vote aside from our once-a-day (if you get xp that day) reminder. Before Friday we had never broken 340 players online at once. On Friday we hit 500 during an event, and yesterday with nothing going on we were hovering around 370.

So, if Achaea's playerbase finds the practice yucky, they a) aren't saying anything and b) are playing more, not less than when we started doing it. I wouldn't claim there's a casual link of course, but it I would claim it's had no serious "annoyance" effect on the playerbase.

--matt

I can't imagine leaving DR, but I am checking out three new muds that I would not have known about if I had not come to this site. I know other DR players that are checking out games too. It isn't that we don't like the game that we play. It's that visiting the site generated curiousity about other games.

In my own case I am looking for a game for my daughter and her friends who will not be able to afford to pay to play. I also want it to be RP intensive because she doesn't have the time to powerplay and because I think it is the fantasy/make-believe aspect that she is most attracted to. I don't want too much PkP. Sure I am looking at the rankings but there are much more important factors.

Perusing the site, reading threads, it seems to me that the message boards are very useful. They look generally friendly and mature. I see admin, coders, builders, sharing information. I see posters answering questions about their muds, some joking around.

Boards are to a large extent what the posters make them. Admin can only do so much to control the mood of the boards even if outright flaming can be controlled.

On the one hand most people seem to be saying the rankings don't really matter, being number one shouldn't be any big deal, but on the other hand they are also expressing resentment towards the one game offering incentives, and also some hostility towards all commercial games. Can't have it both ways.

I believe that if Matt were told it is now against the rules to offer incentives, he would stop. On the other hand I agree with Synozeer that there are so many games out there it would be difficult to catch those who have more subtle incentives to vote.

I thought about it last night and it is really about game loyalty. I have been voting like mad for DR and I do love the game and think it is great, but I have never played any other game so it isn't like voting for say, a politian, where I am comparing several canditates and casting a vote for one of them.

It would be sleazy to offer incentives if it were against the policy of the site, or if it were done secretly, but that isn't the case. I mentioned the factors I considered first while looking for a mud for my daughter. After checking out some sites I realized another primary criteria. Ease of introduction and use. The commercial sites seem to do a much better job of that.

Some of the non-commercial sites offer explanations on what roleplaying is to completely inexperienced players, but they still let their first experience be through telnet. It's almost impossible to just learn as you go. They seem much more suited to players who already know the ropes, know how to choose and download a client, have a good general idea of how to play and only need to know the general rules and premise of the game. Either that, or have a friend who plays and can ease their entry.

I don't much care about the fighting mechanics as long as it is rp intensive, but on the other hand I also have to consider "adult" content. I am fairly free thinking on that score but at 13 my daughter's friends parents could definitely flip out if their daughter ends up rp raped. As I know rp games I will ensure that my daughter knows what to do if someone tries to involve her in rping a scenario she is not interested in. Parents that are not familar with rp games and are familiar with all the net stalking stories are much more likely to flip out and possibly blame either my daughter or me for exposing them to it.

It's a lot tougher to find an appropriate venue then it seems at first glance especially for completely inexperienced players.

Over the years at DR I have become very emotional over some issues one of which was the multi-tier accounts though that is not the only issue which I felt strongly about. Other players have become equally excited over various issues. After five years, I am calmer <grin>. I am still passionate about the game but I have a better sense of humor and I am better able to put things into perspective.

The issue of incentives is a tempest in a teapot. I could see from early on that the games with the highest number of players would be at the top of the list. Anyone looking to try out new muds, experienced or inexperienced, is going to be looking at the features and is going to click on more than one site to try to figure out what the differences are. Most are going to check out the boards too. I didn't just look at the top 20 either. I looked farther down on the list as well.

I think the reason that the commercial muds have so many more players is that they provide ease of entry to completely inexperienced players. Having the most players isn't as important an issue for the free muds as is having players who
are capable roleplayers and will contribute to the story.

The only thing this list ever represented was the game that most likely had the largest population. It isn't even divided by genre. Nothing underhanded or dishonest is happening on this site. It still seems to be operating as intended, a site for creators and players to find out about various muds and exchange information. The ratings never represented the "best" mud because there is no "best" mud only different kinds of muds.

As long as it is within the rules, there is nothing sleazy about offering incentives. I think it is much more important for games to be clear about whether or not they charge, or offer extra benefits for those who pay.

I am leaning towards Achaea for my daughter and friends because of ease of entry. Matt is correct to make a distinction between games with a monthy fee and games in which you can pay for extras but don't have to. I am glad the system suggested which I have been promoting wasn't in place because I wouldn't have even looked at it if it looked like one had to pay to play.

I may sway back towards another game because a friend pointed me to a free telnet client that might help. She already started a character in Feudal Realms but so did I later so I could help them get started, and I had a great deal of trouble getting around. Only one map, blank pages under FAQ with "coming soon", no player developed websites with information that I could find. It's just too hard.

Given that my daughter just wants to play "make-believe" and won't be a power player the ease of entry offered at Achaea will probably serve our purposes better. My first choice would be the Dragonrealms Platinum server but that is way too expensive for my pocketbook. Achaea is providing a valuable niche. It is spanning the divide between the free muds that demand a lot more effort to get started, and the pay to play which require a monthly fee. I didn't choose it because it is number one on the list.

I am getting the feeling that some posters are angry that any commercial muds are here at all. As though regardless of whether or not they offer incentives they are tainting the list. They aren't. The most damaging behavior for any focused site is flaming. That is what will drive away potential players not being offered a wide variety of different styles of muds including ones that charge or offer benefits for cash.

Yep, if it were against the rules, we'd immediately stop. We've got no interest in breaking the rules, despite what a couple people on the list would have you believe. On the other hand, I also agree with Adam that is would be virtually impossible to police a system where no incentives at all were allowed.



That's probably generally (I wouldn't want to say always, as obviously I haven't played every free text MUD out there) true, and it extends beyond just MUDs. Look at linux for instance. Great server OS, but a joke from a user-perspective for a desktop OS. My mother can set up Windows XP and use it fine, but I tried giving her the latest Redhat once, just to see where she had trouble, and she couldn't even get past the setup process (what kind of freaky OS makes you find out the refresh rate of your monitor? Talk about user-unfriendly.)

I think this is a fact of life because while implementing features is often quite fun (again, look at linux. Great set of features.), making them useable is tedious and doesn't seem to arouse the same passion in people that creating the features does. Same goes for documentation generally.



Yep. Someone claimed that unsuspecting web surfers are being duped by the list, because we offer incentives, but then, if they are expecting it to be some authoritative list of the "best" MUDs, then they were always being duped, as it never measured quality, only quantity and frequency of visitors sent here.



I will point out that if your daughter is 13, she might be a little young for Achaea unless she's exceptionally well-spoken for someone her age. Achaea's a VERY community-oriented game, and there are certain points in a character's life that requires basically the approval of people in your community to advance. Some guilds (not all) require small essays on why you should be permitted to be part of them, and so on. Achaea also has a lot of player-killing, though we're pretty strict about enforcing the rule that unless you've done something to someone, that person can't touch you.

You know, you should have your daughter check out Furcadia (). It's got isometric graphics, is free to play, has no player-killing at all (it's not really a 'game' in the sense that most MUDs are), and seems to have the sort of environment your daughter and her friends might really enjoy. It's also really easy to get into as a newbie.

I certainly agree here. The quality of a site or mailing list is usually inversely proportional to the amount of flaming that goes on, as flaming usually indicates a mind that hasn't matured yet, or a failure who is bitter about life generally. I'm just waiting for one of these people here on TMS to start calling someone a Nazi or a fascist. Flamers inevitably do.

--matt

Only if people claimed there were incentives being offered.

I think it would be quite simple for the people in charge of the various games to agree to not offer incentives and go from there. It would be quite easy if everyone kept their word and then no one would be having this conversation.

I mentioned before a type of mud that can't really offer any IG rewards for OOC actions.  There are several on the site right now.

For the record, and I've seen this come up a few times, I -don't- care about being #1.  What I care about is something resembling a true and honest vote for the #1 spot.  I -never- plan to be #1 because I honestly don't want a mud of 500 players a day.  I want something more intimate.  That doesn't make me less ambitious, I just want something else for my mud.

Can anyone name me a type of mud that will be hurt if voting incentives -aren't- allowed?

I would guess that if not the majority certainly a very significant number of muds would not be able to offer incentives without contravening their main premise. That is, absolutely no crossover between IC and OOC.

Absolutely. Quality and quantity are not one and the same, and quantity in this case can even negatively impact quality. I am assuming that while many of the free muds may want to increase their player base that doesn't mean they want them coming in in huge numbers.

Non-issue. I agree that "enforcement" need not be an issue, the call is Synozeer's. Aside from the incentive issue the muds at the top of the list are basically those with the greatest number of players.

Are the kinds of players the smaller muds want the kind that are going to be attracted the games at the top of the list?

Ah, but it is an issue, Seraphina.

A mud with a fraction of the other MUDs players that are on the top list is staying on the top simply because of that incentive.

Achaea would, without incentive, be right where RoD is in the listings right now.

-D

Look, this has been said multiple times by me, and now by Synozeer. This site is a form of a banner exchange. Banner exchanges rightly reward the sites that help them the most, as measured, in the case of TMS, in the form of how much of an audience you reach, and how frequently you can get them here. Placing rules on the 'motivations' of the traffic that is sent here is contrary to the purpose of the banner exchange itself. The more traffic that comes, and the more frequently, the better the exchange serves its purpose. All this hubbub is, from my point of view, a little naive, and please don't take offence at that, as it's not meant as an insult in any way. I just think a few posters on the list need to gain an understanding of what the site is, instead of pretending it is something it isn't.

--matt

The purpose of this site is to get me bubble g... no, wait... the purpose of this site is the promotion of MUD websites, and that sentiment is taken from one of Synozeer's earlier, and by earlier I mean 'an ancient post somewhere other than this thread,' posts. I don't know if the purpose has changed... but if so, it is definitely for the worse... because it doesn't help me get my bubble gum. And as we all know, bubble gum is the cureall for the worlds problems. Including this one.

So, while the above-mentioned 'purpose' sounds 'noble,' which is literally translated from the latin 'nob' and 'le' meaning 'sounds really good' and 'in print,' I don't really see the point, unless it gets me some bubble gum, of creating a site to shove people to sites that already get enough traffic as it is. And, by 'shove people to' I mean 'direct them blindly into the maw of.' I'm sure all those who are most vocal against being rid of voting incentives, most of whom have the name the_logos and post here... a lot... and I mean a lot, will think this is a stupid idea. But, until I get some bubble gum, I really don't care. And I mean that with a complete and utter lack of sincerity.

In all honesty, I think bubble gum is good. But, more to the point, it really is good. I also think the best solution to all the world's problems, all of which involve the words 'voting' and 'incentives' in that order in the title, would be to reverse the ranking order. In other words, flip it over really quick like it was on a roller coaster... you know, the kind that makes it clear why the back of a coaster is never directly under the front when the front is at the top of the loop. If you can't figure it out, it's because those who are at the back would get the bubble gum someone swallowed earlier in their lap. But, back to my point... I really wish I had some bubble gum. But, back to my OTHER point... put the lowest ranked sites, also known as the 'sites that don't get much traffic because others like to be the dominant cow,' on the front page, and the highest ranked, also known as 'the sites that are highly bloated like my family after thanksgiving,' on the last page. That'd solve everything except the most important point. I still wouldn't have bubble gum. :\ If you want to offer voting incentives for more votes to get yourself on the last page of the site... then give me some bubble gum, damnit! But, let's just see how many people do it then... probably none, because there is a conspiracy to keep the bubble gum away from me.

But, that's just my opinion... or so I'm told.