One of our users has come up with a way to do one-click voting for TMS if you're using Zmud. I'd imagine that's nothing new as there are a lot of clever Zmud scripters out there, but I thought I'd post it here for everyone else to give to their users if they wish, or for other users to use it as they see fit. Obviously, replace the initial url with whatever url you send people to in order to vote.

#url
#var Voting 0
#until (@Voting=1) {#var Voting %DDE( iexplore, WWW_GetWindowInfo, 1)
#if (%left(@Voting,30)=") {Voting=1}}
#DDE iexplore WWW_OpenURL {javascript:document.click.submit()}
#unvar Voting
#dde iexplore www_exit


I don't actually use Zmud so haven't tested this myself, but I'm assured it works. What's interesting about this is that combined with a trigger to gag text is that Zmud-using players can create, on their own, the ability to turn off automated voting reminders after having voted.

In other words, whether Adam interprets his rule as allowing voting reminders that the mud turns off after you vote, or requires us to spam all users with vote reminders, a good portion of players are able to turn off the vote reminder after they vote regardless of what the mud itself does.

(Waits for the inevitable, "So let's ban all in-game vote reminders!" followed quickly by a slew of posts saying, "Good luck enforcing that with any kind of consistency at all.")

--matt

I would be rather shocked if many players didn't simply gag the reminders even if they haven't voted.  Unless the automated reminders are dynamic in content the scripts to do so would be extremely simple.  I would guess that the main roadblock stopping people from adding a gag ( out of those with the inclination to do so) is simple ignorance of the client's capability.

What would also be interesting is if a script was made to make it so it will automatically remind players every 12 hours to vote. This would allow players who play muds that don't send messages in-game about voting, to have this functionality added if they so wish. Having the script multiple times would allow them to be reminded to vote in multiple listings.

Greetings,

Now Matt has posted the zmud script lets hope all the rest of you quit your petty rubbish, its quite simple people, spend more time helping your players and get a player base big enough to strip Achaea from top place. All this rubbish is just silly, it is so western world tall poppy syndrome. Matt doesnt get good votes because he advertises in game, he gets good votes because his players enjoy the game, the good immortal staff and the atmosphere.

I have taken this even one step further and set it on a zmud #alarm so it auto-votes if I havent in the last 12 hours. Simply add an alarm that fires at a time you know you will be online.

*snuggles and hugs to Zmud*
Signed

Goryan Ath'loren

Testy posts always go over better when it's by someone who only has one post. And how does this alleviate anything, exactly? It's certainly a benevolent gesture to the voting community, but how does it connect to the current controversy going on? If the rules need to be clarified, then they need to be clarified.

In-game reminders are fine so as long as they don't stop when the player votes or something else happens that's due to voting (such as reaching the top 10). These reminders must be independant from anything to do with voting. You can set it to remind players once a minute if you'd like - it's the reward aspect that is against the rules.

As far as this script goes, does it take the player to the Top Mud Sites website by opening a browser window? If it opens a page up, then there's nothing wrong with it. If it just votes and closes the window, or doesn't open a visible window, then it would not be allowed. Those voting must be able to see the main page of the site, otherwise there's no benefit for the site and the muds on the list.

The reason why I don't have an issue about autoclicking the "Yes, I wish to vote for this site" is because the only people who are using this script are those who want to vote. In this instance, it's fine. However, you cannot do this with a vote button on your website, because there was no conscious effort to agree to vote for the site except for clicking the button, which people will do even if they don't want to vote (curiousity, wanting to see other muds, etc).

Adam

Yep, that's exactly what the script does. It opens, votes, and closes. It's completely undetectable and completely outside the control of anyone but the end user.

And, as a user described in that other thread, you don't even need reminders from the mud to do it. I've so far heard reports of it being used in all of our muds, Armaggedon, Aardwolf, and Feudal Realms. What's the point of banning something that literally cannot be enforced?

--matt

If it's entirely an end-user thing and independant of the mud, there's no problem with it, since a user can choose to vote how they would like to, as long as they don't try to get around the once every 12 hours rule. I thought that the script was used in conjuction with the mud itself.

The only way to prevent this sort of thing would be to fix it on my end, and I'm not sure if that's even possible.

Adam

Yeah, it's all resident in Zmud. I don't think it's even possible to prevent it, as you said, due to the fact that it's just pulling up a web page, clicking for the user, and closing the web page.

--matt

But since it closes the window almost immediately, it doesn't really bring traffic to TMS, does it? I'm not sure that's a very good thing.

Oh I didn't know it automatically did it for muds that don't get the messages. I also don't like the fact it doesn't send traffic to TMS. Getting rid of that last line though appears that it would fix that.

What language does the script use? Any particular language or a special scripting one just for it?

It's in Zmud's scripting language.

--matt

Nothing of this sort is being used at Feudal, as we don't have any sort of tracking script or proxy page running that would even generate anything for a user, please don't go lumping us into things.

I just want to clarify something I said earlier:

This means that you CANNOT display different messages based on whether someone has voted or not. If you're showing a "Please Vote" to someone who didn't vote, and not showing it to someone who did vote, I consider that against the rules. It has to be an all or nothing thing if this rule is going to work, which means NOTHING can be influenced by whether someone voted or not. If you're on the ranking list and currently doing this, you'll need to stop.

Adam

Erm, yes it is, as one of our players apparently plays your game and does it on your game. Keep in mind that you don't need a tracking script, or anything at all from the mud in order to use this script or a variation thereof. It's entirely resident in Zmud. I wasn't accusing any muds of anything. =) Heck, there's nothing anyone can do to stop it anyway.
--matt

Aaah. For the confused (e.g. me) what it does is it creates a button that when pressed, votes. It doesn't have anything to do with reminders or anything.

Right. The same idea embodied in the button could be created to vote on receipt of a particular message from the website though. I'd imagine that since we have to spam users with vote messages whether they've voted or not now, a good portion of them will be using Zmud to gag the vote messages if they've already voted.

--matt

This is indeed a problem since it means a mud is receiving votes and ranking (and therefore benefiting from TMS) without actually sending traffic to TMS (which benefits TMS, its member muds, and advertisers).

Perhaps a possible code fix could be done via the referrer tag and only allow a vote for a certain mud if the source of the packet was the domain name of the mud.

For example, any vote for UberMUD would only count if the referrer came from *.ubermud.com (assuming that is their domain).

Hey,

I'd like to publicly state that I'm extremely disappointed you've arrived at such an unreasonable and illogical conclusion.

There's absolutely no coherent reason mandating that a rule of prohibition be absolute in order to be effective. The best laws are those which recognize that there are exceptions in every situation, and make room for them as best as is possible - in this case, that exception would be one allowing a reasonable, unintrusive, and entirely useful voting reminder once per gaming session. As we have discussed before, no reasonable person could honestly call freedom from a two-line reminder once per gaming session a "reward".

If what you said about a rule being useless and unenforceable unless completely absolute were true, there would be, for example, no self-defense exception to murder laws, nor would judges have any discretion in handing down sentences at post-conviction hearings.

The fact is, as the creator of the site and the final arbiter of the rules here, you have the power to define them as you wish - exceptions included. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever in the enforceability of the rule if you chose to include reasonable exceptions to allow practices such as ours to continue.

Needless to say, I don't really see the sense in this decision. As the owner of the site, of course, you're free to decide as you wish - and for as long as we use your service we will abide by your rules.

As a longtime supporter and user of your site, though, I just wanted to voice my disappointment over the matter. I really do hope you'll at least consider the possibility of making such an exception to the recent rule clarification.


T.

So much for all those 'eyeballs' all that traffic was supposedly sending to TMS.

Just going to add my whole-hearted support, as the person who sends the most traffic here, and who is currently the biggest advertiser, to everything Traithe said.

--matt

That's definitely the point! Traffic to this site, however, would drop like a rock if people had to type in a random series of letters every time they wanted to vote.

--matt

Probably Matt, but it will at least stop clever scripts like the
one you presented that started this whole thread that actually
beat the point of this site.
So it is a matter of quantity of traffic over whether the actual
traffic fulfills it's purpose (or at least has a chance of it).

Yeah, it's a judgement call, no doubt. I advertise here though, and I've got no issue with the current traffic. If the script use became widespread enough and we saw our traffic from topmudsites drop, I'd get concerned. Until then though, the patient is healthy.

--matt

I noticed something interesting. Matt says that as long as he sends eyeballs here, he should be able to use any method he wants. A rule is clarified saying that he is no longer allowed to use the voting reminder mechanism he was. So then he makes a post telling everyone about a script that was made by a player that lets people vote without sending eyeballs here.

I normally don't have a problem with Matt and a lot of criticisms are made about him that (IMO) are unfounded. But for me, this is deliberate. He's saying "fine, if we're not allowed to remind only those who don't vote, we won't send eyeballs here but still gain the benefits of being ranked on this board."

Now in his defence he can say he didn't make the script, but he did bring it to everyone's attention and the fact that he is also harmed by this. But I bet he's relying on the fact that the rule will be changed long before it becomes too much of a concern, because if use of this script becomes wide-spread, Synozeer has more of a problem then Matt as people will stop advertising on his site.

Just seems like a very big co-incidence.

I have never been comfortable with cross-referencing player's i/p addresses from the link on the website with their i/p address in the game to determine who did and did not vote. I could not see a situation in which I would need that information that did not cause me to at least behave or feel differently towards people that did and didn't vote, even if I didn't actually act on it. Not to imply that other MUDs haven't found valid and perfectly "legal" uses for this information, it just doesn't work for me personally.

What we do have on Aardwolf is a command that players can type which basically says "In 12 hours time, remind me to vote". After they type that command, 12 hours later they get a reminder. I guess this technically is sending different output to people based on whether they voted or not, but they have to opt-in to it, it can be turned off at any time and it is not monitored.

As for whether or not players are using scripts to vote, I cannot address that as it is off-mud and I have absolutely no way to know even if I had the inclination to try.

And instead imagine what people like Molly would be saying had I NOT brought it up, and someone else did instead, pointing out that it's being used by players of our mud (and no doubt conveniently ignoring the fact that it's being used by players of other muds too). It's going on whether I bring it up or not. Which would you prefer?

--matt

Sorry if I'm being slow this morning, but how is that sending different output to people based on whether they've voted or not? Do they not get a message if they've voted?

--matt

No, they can vote without setting the timer, or they can set the timer even if they haven't voted. There is no cross referencing to any kind of i/p logs to say whether or not someone has voted and players turn if on/off as they choose. To me, that is very different from a 'hey, why haven't you voted?' reminder that is checking their i/p address against the i/p addresses from the web site. It is more of a generic timer.  In fact, it might not be a bad feature to turn it into a completely generic timer where players can 'alarm' themselves with message Y in X hours.

As a side note, I don't particularly see anything wrong with what you and Traithe are doing in terms of TMS. My reasons for not cross referencing the i/p logs has nothing to do with 'validity of traffic' to TMS, I just feel that for me personally it crosses a privacy boundary.

I think the ruling is a good thing and completely disagree with Traithe and the_logos. Nothing should be affected at all by whether or not you've voted.

Two questions.

1. What's the difference between the zmud script opening and closing a window to vote, and the voter who closes the window immediately after he or she voted? It seems to me that is the sort of voter that this zmud script is designed for. Many, many people just want to vote for their MUD but who don't really browse the site (no offense).

2. What's the logic in the rule that forbids MUDs from turning off a reminder message after they voted? I understand it wouldn't be proper to penalize players for not voting, but turning off a reminder message to remind a player to vote when he or she has already voted seems logical to me. Certainly, I think it is a stretch to call this a "reward" for a player (or a "punishment" for those who don't vote). At the very least, it lets the players know that the MUD administration isn't so dense and incompetent that they can't tell who has voted or hasn't voted.

I feel that while rules are necessary, there's a line that is crossed at some point where the rules appear to demand that players who vote must live in a vacuum.

Just my opinion, of course.

Heh, the latter is precisely what I've been saying all along, Estarra.

Unfortunately, we don't quite seem to be getting through to anyone.

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is one that comes to mind...

Well, people like Molly would probably say, that the apropriate thing to do would have been to privately alert Synozeer of the existance of the script  being used commonly on his own and some other muds, instead of publishing the exact wording of the script that totally defeats the intent of the list, and thereby more or less encouraging everyone reading the board  to use it as well.

Especially after all the talk about the importance of 'eyeballs'.

Mmm, right, and since Synozeer cannot really do anything practical about the script, that would accomplish what when it became more widespread? Make us look like we're hiding a "secret" way to get votes? I know #### well some people out there would have tried to spin it that way.
--matt

Much like a parent, you are responsible for what your little ones do...

I can well believe that was your motive for posting it. What I still don't understand is why you presented it as a magnanimous gift from you to the list.

I mean, look at the heading of this thread:

That's nonsense, and it's only the worst kind of mud admin that treats his or her players as if they were children. Parents are responsible for their children because the children are not capable of making responsible decisions. Most mud players are not children, and if they are, they sure aren't the mud operators' children. They're intelligent adults. Don't patronize them by treating them as if they're kids just because you're the operator of one of the services in their life.

Outside of a game, a mud operator is absolutely not responsible for what people who play his mud do, anymore than the car mechanic he takes his car to is responsible for said person driving drunk and killing someone later.
--matt

Well, it wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from the TMS rules.

I should point out that it is quite common for certain software applications to be free - but with adverts at the top. However frequent users can (and will) then pay to get rid of the annoying banner/s.

Now if people are willing to shell out cash to get rid of that annoying advertising, don't you think they're going to be even more willing to spend a couple of seconds clicking on a voting link to get the same result? The result is therefore a form of reward (you no longer get spammed) which skews the result just as much as any other.

Some muds may only send the voting message once per day, or once per 12 hours, but (until the rule clarification) there was nothing stopping other muds from spamming the player once an hour, or even more frequently. Imagine having a mud which placed the request in every room description, or at the beginning of your prompt, or spammed it once per minute.

Like Dunestalker, I agree that the rule clarification is a good thing. Trying to make exceptions is generally a bad idea - better by far to have clear guidelines that can't be bent, because it's clear already that people are more than willing to bend the rules as much as they can.

Of course just as a rule clarification in a mud is going to upset those players who benefit from it, so the rule clarification here has upset those mud admin who were benefiting from it. The_logo's was upset when he had to stop rewarding players for voting, so obviously he's going to be equally upset now that he has to stop spamming those who don't - but in the long run, I think it's the fairest solution.

I agree with Molly on this one - your post seems to be little more than spiteful retribution against Synozeer's decision.

Try to put yourself in his shoes. If there was a nasty bug on your mud, would you want the player who found it to email you with the details? Or to post it on your muds discussion forums so that all players could exploit it?

I think showing a little more respect might be appropriate.

This is false. The script would be trivially easy to guard against if it posed a problem.

What annoys me is the inanity of it all. It's not going to change Achaea's position as always #1 or #2 just like ceasing to reward people who voted didn't change a thing.

Oh, I'm also informed by Synozeer that thanking your playeres for voting is illegal because a thank you is a reward.
--matt

We used to work hard to fight against scripting in combat in Achaea. We eventually realized that as there is no possible way to stop it (at least not in ways that don't also screw over people who aren't using scripts and auto-responses), we may as well embrace it. Before the realization, we tried to keep the "exploits" regarding scripts off the boards. Now, we don't care where they're discussed? Why? Because I'm not up for tilting against windmills.

The fact is, people are using the script and unless Synozeer implements something that makes people enter a little code upon voting, ala Yahoo registration, there's nothing he can do about it.

And, in any case, he said the script was ok as long as it's run entirely by players.

--matt

While it is okay for it to be run entirely by players, it should not be promoted by the muds themselves. Posting the voting code in a public forum wasn't the best move when trying to make people vote legitimately.

On another note, some think it would be "easy" to prevent these scripts from working. That's incorrect. Here's why:

1. I'm not a programmer (I dabble with coding, that's all).

2. New scripting changing will come out to defeat the safeguards I would have put in place, thus forcing me to constantly tweak the code, run tests, do research, etc. I simply don't have the time for this.

3. I can have a say on how the muds work with voting, but I don't have a say with the players.

Remember when I made the ruling a while back that muds couldn't offer incentives? One of my hesitations was that it was going to require a lot more of my time to police. You guessed it, it does, and I find that I don't have the time (or inclination) to spend X hours a week researching accusations. That's why I do nothing about it anymore unless I'm sent proof, links, logs, etc. I allow those making the accusations to do the research rather than I. Helps weed out the large amount of "I know they're cheating - there is no way they could get that many votes" emails that I get.

Adam

Perhaps yet another rule change is in order then, as if it's legal for a player to do I hardly see how it's illegal for a mud to encourage players to do what's legal.

I'd say you'd need a rule making the practice by players illegal (though they can't be caught), and then yet another new rule banning muds from encouraging players to do anything illegal.

And then we'll need some official interpretations regarding what constitutes encouraging. For instance, what if the mud has links on its website to websites that link to pages that include the script? Is that officially encouraging?
--matt

In regards to the technical and time points you raised, you have an entire community of capable coders here. I'm sure at least one of them would be more than happy to help out if you requested =).

One more thing about scripts and links to vote placed in the mud itself:

If you adapt some logical thinking to the mechanics of the list, I think you'll realize that it is not at all in the interest of a Mud owner that the players, who vote by clicking a link from his/her own site, (or even from inside the mud itself as some apparently do), actually VISIT this webpage. Quite on the contrary; they would prefer it if the player just clicked the link and got the voting over with as soon as possible, preferably without even looking at the list.

Why? Because obviously they have already GOT that player, since he/she voted from their mud. So they have absolutely zilch to gain by the player starting to  browse the list. Because if they do, they might just become curious enough to try out another mud, and maybe even find that they liked that one better than the one they originally came from.

The only 'traffic' to the page that the Mud owners are really interested in is the one that comes to the site by OTHER routes than their own voting link, for instance through search engines, because those are potential new players for them. Obviously they are also interested in their own position on the list, because these potential new players are very likely to first choose from the muds on the top of the list.

Hence the last line on the script that started this thread, which closes the window immediately upon voting.

And this is also why I think it would be interesting to know if any of the existing voting links from inside muds have this same 'feature' too. Maybe someone should check that out, because if this is the practice, that too is something that should be outlawed.

An advertiser's possible perspective:
----------------
Let's say I advertise on TMS.

I pay money for a banner, and examine the statistics links that are on offer about how many unique visitors there are to the TMS website. My confidence grows, knowing that large numbers of people will see my banner - until I stumble across this 'one-click voting' thread...

It is here I find out those statistics don't mean squat -- my banner isn't even being seen by any of those script-kiddies... and that leaves a rather bad aftertaste.
-----------------

I don't want to raise advertising in general as a major derailment of the topic, however anyone who pays for advertising may understandably think the statistics of 'unique visitors to the site' are inflated with people who vote-and-close without even viewing the page.

Hopefully most of those same advertisers realise that TMS is going to have some statistical skew since they *are* a ranking site. Anyway, just figured the vote-and-close mentality should bear in mind the TMS income stream.

*goes back to lurking*

I think this is a patently specious argument in that we all know any MUD that spams players with vote reminders every few seconds and places vote reminders in room descriptions would not be a MUD that survives for long or could possibly retain any new players. My point was simply that it makes sense not to remind players to vote if they have already voted. I disagree with your opinion that this dramatically "skews" results, but I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.

Assuming this isn't an "outlawed" practice, would allowing a player to configure a vote reminder to not remind him or her if he has already voted be acceptible? In other words, it would be player controlled and not admin controlled, yet part of the MUD system. This seems like a practical compromise to me if anyone is interested in compromise positions.