Member Discussions

I'm not sure I really agree with that entirely. Sure, absolue freedom of communication won't really work. But I've seen communities work when given far less stringent guidelines than most places go by.
Yeah, but I believe Tyche is for absolute, complete, and utter freedom of communication... which isn't what you described. Though I don't know what Osiris is for... I believe that was what he was arguing against. Personally, I'm for the atmosphere you're describing, but I don't believe that appeases those on "the other side of the fence" from me.

*shrug*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

From Jess:

Though I don't know what Osiris is for


Osiris is for women fawning all over him, ogling his dessicated flesh, agreeing with his babbling "wisdom", stroking his ego, and wearing skimpy clothing.

*grin*

(Comment added by kingarthyr on Thu Dec 14 19:24:30 2006)

oops, make that wearing skimpy clothing with no underwear while he constantly drops items in front of his wheelchair.

By the way, he seems to prefer Molly above most women to do the above, while Molly prefers to allow him his fantasies while she slowly manuevers his wheelchair into a homosexual bar after taping a "I just took viagra" note on the back of it.

Your generalization about mud admins being nazis did not specify 'broken mostly stock' diku mud admins. Would you like to clarify or rephrase that statement?

It doesn't matter what type of mud you are running if one aspires to be a nazi (either consciously or unconsciously). The mud server itself can't be a nazi anymore than a gun is a killer; it's a tool and can be a poor one or a good one. The lack of user communication features on DikuMuds coupled with either inability to code or design them tends to favor the creation of a mud schutzstaffel.

me: 'Try running something that's design isn't horribly broken from a player's perspective.'

Diku muds and derivitives are popular because the players think they are horribly broken? Is that really a player's perspective? Actually I am sure it is a player's perspective... a player named Tyche! HAHA! :p

The player certainly may not realize it's broken, and may be told it's not broken because "that's the way it works". And there's no mistaking that once the relationship has been established and reinforced between totalitarian and peasant, users are trained to both need and desire it.

Also, the whole AIM\TMC\USENET 'mud' thing. Imaginate indeed... imagine comparing something as specific in context and purpose as a mud game with a theme and everything ;) --- with something as general and unstructured as USENET. I got sort of excited after reading your post and went right to USENET but I couldn't figure out how/where to upgrade my EQ. That 'mud' SUCKS I am afraid.

Even TMC while it has some content context has no mechanics or game associated with it. There is no 'ranking' of TMC members, no way for us to gain power or pkill eachother or really even compete in any measurable way.

Equipment, rankings, game mechanics....are all features that have nothing to do with user communication capabilities. Whether I'm a 14th level half-elfin cleric with a +5 long sword on your mud or a N year human programmer with a tin foil hat wearing lacy red panties on TMC has no effect on the communication features available to me.

Although I posit those features aren't really absent here, just a bit more meta and subtle.
1) There are a number of areas you can play in here each having a different theme. For some reason they are called forums.
2) Within the areas are dozens of user created rooms (threads) where both communication and combat occur.
3) Combat and communication here appears to be turned-based.
4) Combat is done via emoting and most often ends in unresolved draws or sometimes devastatingly witty poster kills.
5) The poster rankings are generally based on user opinion.
6) I've seen some posters compare their rankings based on time played, or member searches on number of posts.
7) And even you have run tinyplots and quests here. ;-P

I don't like censorship either but since you have not yet sent me 'Tyche's ubercool no admin needed mud game code' to run it seems some basic controls are required.
...
Speaking of that ubercool no admin needed code how is that going? Is it something you intend to run/host/release and if so when? I wanna play.

Well I release it but anyone with the mind set that it's somehow necessary is going to change it. No matter. I have released purposely admin-crippled code, and will continue to do so. See TeensyMud and Murk++. But that's only half done as I have not released user enabling communication features in any of that code yet.

Yeah I'll eventually have the game online.

Hmpf. For some reason I can't reply to your post of Wed Dec 13 [5:24 PM]. Consider this a reply to that post.

We've tested our hypothesis twice, with tests that were designed to come out with a certain result, and have come out with the expected results. From what I understand of these two cases, any other result would prove Icculus a complete fool.
It doesn't matter Massaria... he still acted appropriately in the two, and only two, cases which we have here as evidence.

It doesn't matter?!?
If you flip a coin twice and have tails come out both times, you'll conclude that all outcomes will be tails in the future?
You'll conclude that it's more likely to have tails come out in the future?
Get a grip.

Not entirely. He showed it to be mathematically accurate before he went running around shouting about it.

Math can prove a lot of nonsense. I've seen a valid mathmatical proof that it's impossible to hit a golfball with a golfclub.
You're allowed to use reason.

If you show me that, mathematically (or logically), Icculus is *completely incapable* of *ever* being impartial, then you have a case.

You're right, we - more precisely you - are getting repetitious here. I've never said that Icculus is incapable, under any and all circumstances, to be impartial - only that under these current circumstance, he is.
With knowledge of who the reporter is, he's incapable of handling the complaint 100% similarly in all cases.

You don't have to be omniscient to be able to make an informed decision. Having *something* is generally a good idea though.

Point taken. Only problem here is that you'll base your opinion on two clear-cut cases, where I choose to remain skeptical of the soundness of the science or proof of those two.
Furthermore, I refuse to form an opinion on what is made public here on these forums. I'd require to view the dismissed reports before attesting to icculus' fairness based on statistics.

I believe I can help it, and I don't believe I'm being arrogant in that assumption.

Well, you 'can help it' in the sense that it's physically possible to treat all people exactly the same - to think that you're really doing so is extremely arrogant of you.
Are you equally attracted to 81 year olds and 18 year olds? Would you say that attraction to a certain person will alter your attitude towards that person?
If you had a store, would you treat the causual browser exactly similarly to the customer who spends 100s, perhaps 1000s of dollars, each month?
I'll assume your affirmative here and rest my case.

You're the one that said it... just in different words, in a different situation. It is *possible* Icculus could be impartial, therefore we need to assume he *will be*, and respond to it *now*! It is *possible* your friends will murder you, therefore you need to assume they *will*, and respond to it *now*!

I doubt I've ever said anything so profoundly stupid. Please quote me.

Mass.

*sigh* Massaria... I don't even know how to phrase my responses anymore, because you're not understanding my intention. By saying that Icculus' decision making process is like the flip of a coin, you're directly insinuating that his rulings will be unfair (and likely, will be so about half of the time). Of course I wouldn't assume that since something, which has such a completely random outcome as a coin flip, happened to occur twice, it would be any more likely for it to happen in the future. I don't think Icculus flips coins to figure out these things. These rulings aren't random. That being said, if a non-random event occurred multiple times with the same result, yes, it's quite possible I'd believe it to be more likely to occur again. For example, if my friend orders a chocolate shake both of the only two times we go out to eat... I'd figure that next time, he might just order a chocolate shake. Anyway, that's not even the point. And it's important you understand that this isn't a point I'm making.
I am not saying Icculus *will be* fair in the future. I am also not saying that because he *has been* fair, that means he *will be* later on.
What I *am* saying, is that you have absolutely no reason, which has any solid foundation, whatsoever, to believe he won't be fair. To prove me wrong, you have to do one of two things. Prove to me that it's *impossible* for him to be fair, or show me some example of when he *wasn't* fair before.

Math can prove a lot of nonsense. I've seen a valid mathmatical...
No, you've seen an invalid one. Math cannot "prove" nonsense. It can *appear* to prove nonsense. There is a major difference there. It's like, if one person argues with you for a little while, and convinces you of something which in reality isn't true. We've all had it happen before. You're still convinced of it. Later down the road, someone else will (hopefully) convince you you're wrong, and you'll realize how foolish that belief was. In both cases, you were convinced you were right, but only in one case you actually were.

For example, I'm sure you're familiar with the Ontological proof of God. I wrote it out here, but then decided that my version of it sucked, so it can be found at wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#A_modern_description_of_the_argument
Taking the first (though I believe, probably the least popular) excerpt:
1. God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. God exists.
The second "proof" is actually the one I'm most familiar with, though phrased differently. In essence, however, the point is that this "proof" was debated for quite some time, until another philosopher (though I can't remember his name), noted that imagination does not entail existence. (Though, of course, he said it more eloquently, I'm reciting this all from memory). ---

Anyway, stepping aside from the largest tangent I think I've ever made... the point is that this "proof" really isn't logically sound, but it wasn't for many, many years of it being accepted as accurate before that fact was shown to be true. If you pose some logical "proof" here, that Icculus cannot *possibly* be impartial, and I am unable to refute it, that wouldn't make it necessarily true. Of course not. It would, however, give you some basis for your argument.

Without showing me some evidence of your argument, in one form or another, which isn't solely speculation, I'm sorry to say that you don't really have much of an argument. Once again, I'm not saying that you're not necessarily right (despite the fact that I don't agree with you). All that I'm saying is that, for your argument to have some foundation, and thus to be taken seriously (at the very least by me), you're going to have to wait some time until you have some example to give.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Fri Dec 15 16:30:18 2006)

I doubt I've ever said anything so profoundly stupid. Please quote me.
I don't feel like going through these 8? pages to find every time you've said that. Particularly, because it wouldn't actually prove anything, seeing as you'd say it was out of context, or that I misinterpreted it. Instead, please tell me what it is you *are* saying, if it's *not* that we should change the report system now based solely upon speculation? Once again, giving me evidence that it's not *just* speculation would be fine as well.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Well, you 'can help it' in the sense that it's physically possible to treat all people exactly the same - to think that you're really doing so is extremely arrogant of you.
I never said I *did* treat everyone exactly the same in every circumstance. I am certainly capable of it, however. You're saying that it's completely impossible to make a decision based solely on a situation, without any other information? Of course not. So, on that note, you really believe that it's impossible for anyone to make a decision based on that same situation, without considering other information? --- That's what role-playing is all about! Ironic, hence, that we're discussing it in a mud forum. While role-playing, you make decisions based on a situation presented, *without* using OOC information. I've walked to my death while role-playing before, knowing full well I was going to die the whole way.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Odd. Still having problems replying to some posts.

Anyways...

We've been running around in circles for some time now, and it's not quite a fun as it used to be.
How about a summary? Correct me if I get it wrong.

I don't like that some people, the advitisers in particular, get special treatment. I say that because of Icculus dependancy on their financial contribution, he is unduly influenced and prone to favor these people.

You say that I'm wrong (well, in all posts but these last two), Icculus will be fair. You have no reason to think otherwise.

I claim that while Icculus seems fair on the surface of things - possibly even to himself - he's incapable of treating everyone the same, that this behavior is in fact very basic and reasonable.

You claim that I'm simply saying that because he might be impartial, he necessarily will be impartial.
On the other hand, I'm accusing you of the same fallacy - that because he's capable, in some circumstances, to be impartial, he'll be so in our circumstances as well.

I refuse to look at the two cases we have before us, deeming them unsuitable for a proper test of icculus' judgement, and claiming that we'll need to know about the dismissed reports as well, before we can form an opinion based on proofs or science.

You're saying that since this is all we have to go on, we must base our conclution on this. That even though it's meagre pickings, it's the only valid, hard evidence we have.

______

Is that about right?

In any case, I'm still left with a feeling of slight amazement. I can see how you'd require some example of Icculus' unfairness before calling him on it.
On the other hand, I think my argument about how people will treat those they depend upon differently from those they, in principle, could care less about, is valid and self-evident - I don't need to cite some scientific journal in order for you to acknowledge the truth of it. At least I shouldn't have to.

Hm. My hour here at the cafe is about up. I hope this will somehow bring us back to the essentials - however fascinating the 'you said, I said' game is ;-)

Mass.

Actually, no. I'll go one statement at a time.
I don't like that some people, the advitisers in particular, get special treatment. - I understand you feel that way, and I agree they get special treatment. Just not when it comes to post removal. I don't feel it's a bad thing they get special treatment in other areas, since it facilitates mudconnector existing.

You say ... Icculus will be fair. - No. I think it's quite possible he will be fair. Personally, it's my opinion he will be, but I'm certainly open to the possibility he won't. I just don't think we should go changing things with what we have before us now.

You claim that I'm simply saying that because he might be impartial, he necessarily will be impartial. - I don't understand this sentence... however I assume you mean "partial" instead of "impartial"? If that's the case, I'm not saying he necessarily *will be*, but I'm asking you to acknowledge the possibility, which it doesn't appear you are.

I'm accusing you of the same fallacy - that because he's capable, in some circumstances, to be impartial, he'll be so in our circumstances as well. - Yes, but see, here's the difference. You are saying that because it's possible, it *will* happen. From these last two sentences of yours, I'm sure you understand the fallacy in that logical deduction.

I refuse to look at the two cases we have before us, deeming them unsuitable - I agree that you've been saying this.

You're saying that since this is all we have to go on, we must base our conclution on this. - No, I'm not saying we have to come up with any conclusion. All that I'm asking, is that you acknowledge the possibility that Icculus will be fair, and thus remain skeptical of things, but be content with waiting to see if everything will turn out how you expect. I was saying that the two examples we have were the only valid evidence we have, only because I thought it to be relevant to show you that Icculus could *possibly* be fair in the future, since I believe he has been in the past.

Anyway, that's my rendition of things, based on my impression of what your intention was, (more or less) solely on your statements in your last post... Up to now, I don't think you understand my intention in all of this. Do you have a different impression of it now?

I think my argument ... is valid and self-evident - I don't need to cite some scientific journal
I'm not asking you to cite some scientific journal. What I wanted, was for you to logically show me that Icculus couldn't possibly be fair in the future. I asked you to do this because I think you were jumping to conclusions based on belief of that concept, which is a concept I believe "is invalid and self-evidently false". As a result, alot of my posts were attempts to show you logically why I believe that concept to be wrong, however my intention has nothing to do with that. My intention is just that you should wait before jumping to conclusions. I acknowledge that it is possible that Icculus will treat advertisers in a preferencial way when it comes to abuse reports, but I also acknowledge the possibility he won't, based on a logical deduction that it's *possible* he won't, which I can show you again, if you so please.

However, in the first couple posts you made, if I recall correctly, you made statements about how the abuse report system should be changed now... What I'm saying, is that you should wait until there is some evidence of your assumption being correct before acting on that assumption. In this case, you should wait until the abuse report system is abused, before you ask that it be changed. Nomatter what else I say, *that* is my intention. Everything else is just debate to bring you back to *that*.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

#1: You two, get a room.

#2: Massaria, your position is "reasonable" but that
does not make it correct. It is speculative, and,
forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, Jess,
but I think that's what Jess is trying to explain.


Let me clarify what I mean.

Adam: "Person X will perform action Y."

Beverly: "Maybe, but you can't know that."

Adam: "Yuh huh."

Beverly: "Nuh uh."


Massaria, Please don't interpret this as
hostility, but you have posited a prediction on
events beyond your control. At best, corroboration
might be past history of the behavior in question.
But even then, any wise investor knows that past
performance is no guarantee of future results.

You've made the extraordinary claim that you
have knowledge Icculus *cannot* be impartial.

The burden is now on you to provide extraordinary
evidence to support that claim.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net


(Comment added by cratylus on Sat Dec 16 16:42:04 2006)

I was going to go on a tangent about the problem
of knowledge and the three pillars of epistemology,
but then I'd be pulling a Jess, so I'm keeping
things simple.

The argument I'm making, in its simplest form, is

"You can't know you're correct, and you haven't proved it."

(Comment added by cratylus on Sat Dec 16 17:36:09 2006)

PS I think Tyche's apparent attitude that
anything he feels like calling a mud is a mud is
far out. Equipment, rankings, game mechanics are
all available to me in any number of real-life and
entertainment scenarios, but I'd have a hard time
calling all of them muds. Unless, perhaps, I'd
made an outrageous claim that could otherwise not
be supported. Though I like to think I have more of
a sense of shame than to do that.

lol... pulling a Jess. I know I go on tangents, but so much so that I need my own expression?

Best of Luck,
-Jess

> PS I think Tyche's apparent attitude that anything he
> feels like calling a mud is a mud is far out. Equipment,
> rankings, game mechanics are all available to me in any
> number of real-life and entertainment scenarios, but I'd
> have a hard time calling all of them muds.

The definition of "mud" is far from clear, but I've not yet encountered anyone who didn't agree that a mud (1) runs on a computer, (2) can be played from computers other than that upon which it runs, and (3) can be used by multiple players simultaneously.

Outside of that, the definition gets less clear, and there's a lot of disagreement. Some people don't consider the graphical muds to be muds, for example, while others don't even consider mud derivatives to be muds any more (particularly those running TinyMUDs, but I've heard the same views from a few people running Diku or LPmuds as well).

Personally I don't consider TMC to be a mud because its not real-time (in the same way as I wouldn't consider online turn-based browser games such as Monarchy to be muds). However that's really just my interpretation (just as Tyche has stated in the past that he doesn't consider my old Gladiator Pits codebase to be a 'mud' because there is no concept of location - no rooms, world, or anything else, everyone is in the same place).

You claim that I'm simply saying that because he might be impartial, he necessarily will be impartial.
- I don't understand this sentence... however I assume you mean "partial" instead of "impartial"? If that's the case, I'm not saying he necessarily *will be*, but I'm asking you to acknowledge the possibility, which it doesn't appear you are.

Your assumption is correct. It should have been 'partial' where it says 'impartial'. I apologise for the confusion.

I acknowledge that it's possible for icculus, in some circumstances, to be impartial, to be perfectly fair.
Just not in these - our - circumstances.
He will be partial no matter what he does, with the way he's positioned himself in this report-system.

I'm accusing you of the same fallacy - that because he's capable, in some circumstances, to be impartial, he'll be so in our circumstances as well.
- Yes, but see, here's the difference. You are saying that because it's possible, it *will* happen. From these last two sentences of yours, I'm sure you understand the fallacy in that logical deduction.

No. What I'm saying is that it is impossible for icculus to be impartial with the current system. Simply that.
That doesn't mean that he can't be impartial in other situations, but that fact (that he can be impartial in other situations), certainly doesn't mean that there's even a remote chance he'll be impartial in our situation.

Anyway, that's my rendition of things, based on my impression of what your intention was, (more or less) solely on your statements in your last post... Up to now, I don't think you understand my intention in all of this. Do you have a different impression of it now?

It it my understanding that you were of the opinion that icculus is, and will be, fair. I'm not so sure where you stand now.
I understand that you want me to acknowledge that it is possible for Icculus to be impartial under these current circumstance, which I wont.

As for your intention with this discussion, I couldn't say.

I'm not asking you to cite some scientific journal. What I wanted, was for you to logically show me that Icculus couldn't possibly be fair in the future. I asked you to do this because I think you were jumping to conclusions based on belief of that concept, which is a concept I believe "is invalid and self-evidently false".

Dangit. I'm running out of time, again.
I'm not sure which concept you're referring to here. I suppose that it must be my claim that icculus will treat matt (and matt's reports), differently because he's financially dependant on matt.
If you can't see the logic of that, I give up on you.

My intention is just that you should wait before jumping to conclusions.

There's no need to wait. I have all the information I need - what's more, I'll never have more useful information, which makes it pointless to wait.

I acknowledge that it is possible that Icculus will treat advertisers in a preferencial way when it comes to abuse reports, ...

Stop the press!
This is new. Perhaps there's hope. Why, if I may, do you think he might treat them in a peferencial way?

... but I also acknowledge the possibility he won't, based on a logical deduction that it's *possible* he won't, which I can show you again, if you so please.

Hehe, if that's the one that goes "I might stab my self to death within the hour, so I might as well commit myself to the loony bin right away", there's no need. It was funny the first time around - no longer so, I'm afraid.

Please understand that I'm working within the realm of reason here, not within the realm of possibilities. Just because it is actually, physically possible for Icuulus to be fair, doesn't mean he'll ever be capable of really being so.

I can't look it up now, but in danish some judges and officials will sometimes withdraw from a given case, because they're 'inhabile' - that is, they have some interest in the matter at hand, and therefore they deem themselves partial to a certain party in the case. This is Icculus - he's very much 'inhabile' and should have the good sense to know so.

Mass.

#1: You two, get a room.

ROFL.
Yeah, I feel the same.

All the same, please see my reply to mann_jess for your points.

Mass.

A judge's responsibility is to not only avoid
partiality, but also the appearance of partiality, and
so recusing herself can be expected.

I don't usually hold site owners to this standard.
If you do, then you must face a great deal of
disappointment, very often.

I think the problem here is that your arguments
seem to be absolute. You are saying

"X is true."

Rather than

"My opinion is that X is true, based on what
I know of human behavior."

It might seem like a minor, trivial distinction.
It might seem like a purely pedantic nitpicking.

But there's a big difference, and if you don't see
it, this calls your judgment into question.

The first statement begs argument. I just have to
take it for granted you have access to facts I
do not. Otherwise, I have to question how it's
possible for you to have this access. That is the
questioning you are undergoing.

The second statement is an opinion, and a reasonable
one at that. It is based on your experiences and
biases, doesn't assume omniscience, and is generally
not subject to the kind of questioning you've been
getting.

This probably seems like semantic time wasting, in
the sense that "of *course* what I'm saying is just
my opinion." However, there really are people out
there under the impression that their opinion equals
reality, and personally I'd like to know if you're
one of them.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Cratylus:
> PS I think Tyche's apparent attitude that anything he
> feels like calling a mud is a mud is far out. Equipment,
> rankings, game mechanics are all available to me in any
> number of real-life and entertainment scenarios, but I'd
> have a hard time calling all of them muds.

No not "anything". I call it mud because it matches the minimal criteria for a mud. I don't believe equipment, rankings and game mechanics are at all necessary, because I've played muds where some or all of that was not present.

KaVir:
The definition of "mud" is far from clear, but I've not yet encountered anyone who didn't agree that a mud (1) runs on a computer, (2) can be played from computers other than that upon which it runs, and (3) can be used by multiple players simultaneously.

I'd add location and persistent identity. Location is present here although more abstract in that one moves to a room (forum/thread). Persistent identity is obvious (TMC like some muds even has a no multi-character policy).

Personally I don't consider TMC to be a mud because its not real-time (in the same way as I wouldn't consider online turn-based browser games such as Monarchy to be muds).

Real time is slippery. Some muds have turned based systems, but they are usually time limited. On TMC I've often exchanged messages in real time. The difference here is more that communication is persistent (unless disrupted by the admin). The "logs" are attached to the "rooms" (threaqds). But that too is something you can find in TinyMuds in the form of Logging/Camera/Taping objects.

However that's really just my interpretation (just as Tyche has stated in the past that he doesn't consider my old Gladiator Pits codebase to be a 'mud' because there is no concept of location - no rooms, world, or anything else, everyone is in the same place).

Nods. IIRC, once you create you exist nowhere, then when you challenge you exist in an instanced location temporarily with one other person, then you go back to nowhere.

The Unix shell is a mud (so some say). So much so that I believe there are two muds that mimic it. One was called MOOix... the other was a Perl script that aliased unix commands to mudlike commands and used talkd daemon for communication.

But the whole point is not what is or isn't mud, but to illustrate the very muddish provincial view some have on communication capabilities.

Yes, actually, what Cratylus said in his last post is correct. In essence, you saying that it is *your opinion* that Icculus will be unfair is different than you saying that he *will* be. For me, this distinction comes into play because you're saying that we should change the report system based on that opinion, with your major supporting point being that (as far as I can tell) it is not an opinion, but rather a fact. Anyway, Cratylus said it better than I did, so I'll just leave this part at that.

[it] doesn't mean that there's even a remote chance he'll be impartial in our situation.
I'm not saying that because he can be in other situations, that at all influences his behavior in this one. However, it does give an indication that it's a possibility. Just because I am capable of jumping off the ground on earth, doesn't mean I'm capable of jumping on another planet. It does, however, indicate a greater probability I will be able to. Likewise, were I incapable of jumping on earth (like if I were wheelchair bound), that would indicate a smaller probability of being able to on another planet. A major distinction here is that I'm not trying to "prove" future events. I'm simply allowing for possibilities, and I'm doing my best to show them to you.

What I'm saying is that it is impossible for icculus to be impartial with the current system.
Alright, so as I've tried to say previously, but obviously didn't communicate well. What I need from you is some logical statement, or evidence, of what you just said. You need to somehow prove it to me, because otherwise it's just your opinion, which doesn't hold weight when trying to convince a anyone of a course of action.

Lastly, This is new. Perhaps there's hope.
No, this isn't new. Obviously, once again, I've failed to communicate this to you. I am open to the possibility that Icculus will be unfair. My goal, is not to convince you that he *will be* fair. My goal is to convince you that there's a possibility he will be. I have always acknowledged the possibility he won't.

I've tried to keep this short, with only a few tangents. I'm working on it, I promise!

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Just to be a wise ass:

Definition of mud: dirt mixed with water.


As to a MUD in the context of what we all are talking about, let's dissect it for a second...

MUD = Multi-User Dungeon


Ok so based on that we need:

1) Ability for more than 1 person to be on at same time
2) A location for these people to be together at one time

Ok, as far as TMC goes, it can technically be a mud because more than 1 person can access it at the same time. But, can they be in the same "place" at the same time? Yes and no. Yes because 2 or more people can be accessing the same part of TMC at the same time. No because they can't see each other or interact at the same time with each other. The only place that is possible is TMCNet's IM feature.

Now based on what MUD stands for, a computer is not even required. So technically a table top PnP game is a mud. Do we consider it a mud usually? Nope. Why? Because usually we infer that a MUD requires a computer.

On the old BBSes we used to have turn-based games, these also were not muds because more than 1 user could not play the game and interact at the same time.

So by inference, the definition of MUDs can be expanded as follows:

1) Server based (as most of the top a server is required for multiple people to access the features at the same time, though a PC can ACT as a server if its set up right, but it'd still be considered a server for all intents and purposes)

2) More than 1 person can interact with the server at the same time.

3) These people can interact with each other at the same time.

4) Some sort of location where this takes place.

Based on this, that Gladiator Pit would qualify as a mud, because the 1 room/area, the arena is the location, and of course it was on a server, people interacted with the server and with each other.

The need for equipment, levels, classes, races, etc are not requirements, as various muds don't use all or some of these features.

Just my 2 cents.

As to Iccy's ability to be impartial...well, when it comes right down to it, impartiality is a fallacy. Everyone has opinions, thoughts, etc based on their own thought processes. There can be an attempt an impartiality by weighing of facts, but opinions do creep into decisions, as well as prejudices (ie: if someone didn't like big business, their ability to be impartial in a case of like Microsoft vs John Doe would be prejudiced.)

Quoth Kingarthyr:
'Osiris is for women fawning all over him, ogling his dessicated flesh, agreeing with his babbling "wisdom", stroking his ego, and wearing skimpy clothing.'

Completely backwards... I just try to mind my own business it's all the girlies can't keep their hands off me yo.

As for the hot redhead she plays hard to get and puts up a good front but once I get her alone she can't resist.

From Osiris:

As for the hot redhead she plays hard to get and puts up a good front but once I get her alone she can't resist.


Been slipping her Mickey's in her drinks again, eh?

What I'm saying is that it is impossible for icculus to be impartial with the current system.
Alright, so as I've tried to say previously, but obviously didn't communicate well. What I need from you is some logical statement, or evidence, of what you just said. You need to somehow prove it to me, because otherwise it's just your opinion, which doesn't hold weight when trying to convince a anyone of a course of action.

I guess we must both be pretty poor communicators, or understanders, since I too have tried to explain my reasoning when I say the above. I'll try yet again.

Earlier you've said:

That's not to repeat what everyone else has said already, but only to note that Icculus makes (at least part of) his livelihood from advertising on this site, which is made possible solely by the fact that the site is a good reference material for MUDs, and a good forum for civil MUD-related discussion. Were either of those two conditions to be compromised, advertising on his site would become less valuable. For that reason, it may be a great idea to allow anyone to say anything they want... but you have to keep in mind that allowing them to do so financially burdens Icculus, as the number of pointless flames and obscene (or otherwise profane) content grows. After all, there are plenty of other places you can find, all over, that aren't governed by any moderation. *shrug*

You obviously understand that Andrew depends on Matt. Matt is a very valuable customer - I dare say the most valuable customer - to Andrew.
Now, to me at least, it stands to reason that Andrew cannot help but treat Matt differently from the rest of us.

I've made this argument time and time again, and I have yet to see you produce a retort beyond "It's *possible* for him to be impartial, so he should have the benefit of the doubt".
To me, there's no doubting (for once ;-)

This is all of my argument, I hope it's clear enough by now.

Mass.

I don't usually hold site owners to this standard.
If you do, then you must face a great deal of
disappointment, very often.

Oh I do get disappointed quite a bit. Rarely by system administrators. I don't deal much with them.
In any case I'd certainly hold owners and administrators to the same standard as I do Icculus.

I think the problem here is that your arguments seem to be absolute.

To what problem are you referring?

But there's a big difference, and if you don't see it, this calls your judgment into question.

This isn't entirely fair of you. Right from the very first post I've made to this thread, I've tried not only to state my opinion but to back it up with my reasoning.
That I may not do it very well, or politely, is another matter.

However, there really are people out
there under the impression that their opinion equals
reality, and personally I'd like to know if you're
one of them.

Hm-Hm. This might turn out an interesting discourse on philosophy, since I might argue that my understanding of reality is, in fact, reality. To me, that is. Reality might be something else to you, but what's it to me?

Hope you didn't think you'd get a sensible answer to that.
Mass.

I got the answer to the question, actually.

Thanks :)

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

> Now based on what MUD stands for, a computer is not even
> required.

I disagree. "Dungeon" (aka "Zork") was one of the first interactive fiction computer games, and the name "Multi-User Dungeon" was specifically chosen as a reference to that game.

In other words, going by what MUD stands for, it should be a Multi-User version of an interactive computer game such as Dungeon.

Or even more specifically it should only refer to the Multi-User version of ONE interactive computer game- Dungeon, in which case there are no MUDs anymore.

But I see your point, MUD has become generalized in the way of terms such as "Band-Aid", "Xerox" or "Coke" such that any activity similar in form AND function to the original MUD is called a MUD. And I don't think people call hair ties "Band-Aids" though you could argue that the term describes those items fairly well.

You obviously understand that Andrew depends on Matt... [etc]
No, I understand that argument. However, just because Icculus has a different relationship with Sarapis than me, for example, doesn't mean that he is incapable of judging my behavior regarding Sarapis, or Sarapis' behavior regarding me, with impartiality. The statement you made shows that Icculus naturally has a different relationship with each of us. That's where your opinion comes in, where you believe that it is *impossible* for someone to treat a person in one kind relationship the same as someone in a different kind. To prove, or convince me, that it's more than opinion, you have to prove that last statement, which you haven't discussed.

and I have yet to see you produce a retort beyond "It's *possible*
Yes, because in this case, you're claiming it's *impossible*. For me to make any other argument would be a tangent, which clearly I do enough already.

Best of Luck,
-Jess