Member Discussions

A good argument can be made that MUD refers to an
ontological category, like an atom with a specific set
of characteristics. Another can be made that it
is in fact a functional definition, like "weed",
"literature" or "pornography".

Both arguments are interesting, and probably
worth pursuing to someone, somewhere.

My opinion is that there is a general agreement,
probably bell-curved, as to whether set of
circumstances qualifies a thing as a MUD. We can debate
the circumstances, but the fact remains that the folks
here and on other mud related venues have a generally
common frame of reference when talking about "mudding".

An outlier on this bell curve is presumed to have
a view at odds with the main body of opinion. These
views are presumably just as valid as any other...

but they are still "far out".

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net/

Crat, I concur with all of what you said. In a roundabout (and sleep deprived) way, I was trying to illustrate that various "definitions" can be used to describe a mud. Basically what it boils down to is: Opinions will vary.

I still think mud = dirt mixed with water, but then again, others might think mud = dirt mixed with water + grass.

I also think that the discussion is kinda pointless, like most philisophical discussions because there will never be unanimous consensus.

> 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.

Well not even the original MUD was a version of Dungeon - to quote Richard Bartle: "It was named that way for two reasons. First, because we hoped that the text games we now know as adventures would be generically called Dungeons, after the Fortran version of Zork (called DUNGEN) that was doing the rounds. Second, because Roy wanted something to go after the ‘MU’ for ‘Multi-User,’ and he liked the idea of it being a D, so he looked for something that would fit".

> 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.

Yup, it's become a name for a whole genre of multi-player computer games.

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.

Here we go again: "It's *possible* he'll be impartial, therefore he probably will be".
Nonsense. And you know it.

I say that even though he's capable of such behaviour, it's extremely unlikely considereing the implications it'll have on his finances.

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.

That's how a discussion works. We go out tangents in order to support points or views we've made earlier in the discussion.
In any case, you've got my explicit permission to go out on all the tangents you like. I doubt it'll help you any, though.

Mass.

Alright Massaria, I'm just about done. You are claiming that something is a complete impossibility. To say that my proving that it is possible isn't relevant is ridiculous. The first statement you quoted, by the way, had nothing to do with that... it had to do with showing you the distinction between the argument you're making, and the argument you need to make to progress this conversation. You have shown that Icculus has a different relationship with each of us. Great. That doesn't mean that he'll treat each of us differently, however. To make your point more than an opinion, you have to do one of two things. One, prove that someone is incapable of treating two people the same, when that person holds a different relationship with each of them. Or two, show me an example of when Icculus behaved this way before. ---- I've said this far too many times now. Your opinion is true to you because you *believe it* to be true, based on *your* experiences, but not because it has any factual basis for the rest of us. You don't convince anyone of anything by repeating your opinion over and over, or speculating on what *might* happen. You have to provide me with something else... because I'm completely out of energy to come up with new arguments, and new ways of phrasing them, when you have but one opinion which you haven't, in any way, supported.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

(Comment added by mann_jess on Tue Dec 19 14:49:58 2006)

And by the way... for the last time. I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*. You, however, are refusing to acknowledge those possibilities. I'm not rephrasing any more of what I've already said.

Jess:

Have you ever heard the saying: "I did not have the time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one."?

This seems to apply to you. Extremely. I can't even read your posts, I skim for maybe ten keywords, but that's about it. I'm doubting I'm the only one either. This isn't a personal attack on you, just something I've noticed from lurking the forums for quite a while.

OnceHour,

The same is true for me.

I think Jess's posts are articulate and well reasoned.

I happen to think she elaborates more than is useful
for the advancement of her position. I don't think
this merits a post from someone whose entire objective
is to point out an imperfection in her advocacy.

In this case, I think she's dead right. Massaria
is saying "X cannot be done by Icculus", and given that
it is patently possible by someone who tries hard enough,
it's on him to provide proof that it is not in this case.

Else it is speculation, and not actionable information.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Well, the problem is that I have trouble empathizing with someone who doesn't understand me. So, in turn, I go through everything I can imagine which could be the result of the miscommunication. Then, I get lost in what I'm talking about, and by the time I find my way out of the little maze in my head, I've gone off on several tangents, and spent a good half hour doing it. Then, I feel bad about deleting whatever I just wrote, so I try to summarize it, which naturally becomes repetitious. Anyway, I'm sure you didn't want to know all that, but perhaps it explains my lunacy. Plus, boredom fits in there somewhere... but I'm already too bored with what I'm writing to figure out where.

And thanks, cratylus. I appreciate your compliment, despite the fact that your style writing is essentially what I aspire to be able to attain. *smile*

Best of Luck,
-Jess

You are claiming that something is a complete impossibility. To say that my proving that it is possible isn't relevant is ridiculous.

Alright, so claiming it's impossible for icculus to be impartial is putting it to the point. I've moderated my language several times, saying that while it's possible for him to be fair, it's not likely or even reasonable.

You have shown that Icculus has a different relationship with each of us. Great. That doesn't mean that he'll treat each of us differently, however.

Not each of us, just those he depends upon financially.
You treat your boss differently from your colleages not because he's smarter than you, but because he might fire you and leave you without a way to continue life as you know it.
When Andrew sees a report, or anything else, from Matt, he'll involuntarily have this at the back of his mind. He can't help it. It is, in effect, impossible for him not to think about it. To Andrew, Matt is solidly associated with earning money and therefore with the potential loss of the same.

Your opinion is true to you because you *believe it* to be true, based on *your* experiences, but not because it has any factual basis for the rest of us.

"us"-who? Who are you to say what experiences 'the rest of them' has had?
Could it be, that it's your lack of experiences with working for your money that causes you not to see a connection where most can? It's *possible*, right?

You don't convince anyone of anything by repeating your opinion over and over, or speculating on what *might* happen.

Well done, Jess! You're learning.

You have to provide me with something else... because I'm completely out of energy to come up with new arguments, and new ways of phrasing them, when you have but one opinion which you haven't, in any way, supported.

New arguments? Hardly.
New ways of rephrasing the same one? Aye, certainly - you must be tired.
I've supported my opinion - not with proof, no - but by explaining a very reasonable dependancy between employee and employer. While Andrew and Matt may not have that exact relationship, it's close enough. One is certainly dependant on the other.

And by the way... for the last time. I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*.

That's a boldfaced lie. And since it's so easily revealed as such, it's a poor one at that:

It's not my opinion that everyone will start jumping on reporting things now... but in either case, it's all just a matter of opinion, on both our parts. If a problem arose with the function, Icculus would find a way to deal with it, I'm sure.

And I'm saying that's an unfair statement. I believe he has, up to this point, and I believe he will continue to [be impartial].

Since it is possible for him to be impartial, I'm saying that your point is that you don't believe he will be, and my point is that I do believe he will.

My opinion is that "I believe he will be" [impartial].

You believe Icculus will be unfair. I believe he won't.

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.

Mass.

Massaria is saying "X cannot be done by Icculus", and given that
it is patently possible by someone who tries hard enough,
it's on him to provide proof that it is not in this case.

I beg the differ. Disregarding that someone who tries hard not to favor a certain party, will very likely turn out to disfavor that party, I think I've made a credible claim about financial dependance, while all jess has done is say, "it's possible!".
I think the burden of proof, or at least retort, lies with her.

Mass.

You treat your boss differently from your colleages not because he's smarter than you, but because he might fire you and leave you without a way to continue life as you know it

What if you are the best employee he can hire? Then the tables may turn.
If Matt were to "fire" Icculus, he'll lost it's main source of advertising.

What's with all the squabbling? If you really think Icculus is being that unfair, coordinate and buy your own ads. If you think the Diku ads are abhorrent, some of you could make anti-IRE ads. Hell, you could even link to a site that gives information on why IRE is bad. But quit this pointless nitpicking.

It makes these forums annoying to read, and as much as I support your right to blabber on, I don't particularly want to read it. If you have that many problems with the situation, just take action.


-Once

I've supported my opinion - not with proof, no
Precisely. I need proof or an example. I've given you logical proof and examples of my opinion. If you can't provide that, then I'm out of things to say.

That's a boldfaced lie
Your misinterpretation of my point does not make me a liar. Thanks though.

"us"-who? Who are you to say what experiences 'the rest of them' has had?
Could it be, that it's your lack of experiences with working for your money that causes you not to see a connection where most can?
Most? Who are you to say what experiences 'most' have had? 'Us' in that context means the people who are not you. I am one of those people. And, for the record, I have and do work for my money, plenty... just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me a lazy idiot. Thanks again though.

You treat your boss differently from your colleages not because he's smarter than you, but because he might fire you
Actually, since you brought it up, I can think of two examples of jobs I've had where I didn't treat my boss any differently from anyone else. Not that this makes it any more real for *you*, but then again, you seem to be of the impression that personal experiences which you can't show make a point better than logical proof or actual evidence.

He can't help it. It is, in effect, impossible for him not to think about it.
Prove it or show it. If I wasn't tired enough of the conversation, you attacking me has brought me to the end.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

If you really think Icculus is being that unfair
Lol. That's the point. Massaria doesn't think Icculus is being unfair. Massaria thinks he might be, even while admitting he never has been.

I think I've made a credible claim about financial dependance, while all jess has done is say, "it's possible!"
You've made claims about why financial dependence makes it impossible, while I've made "credible claims" as to why it's possible, as well as providing logical proof, as well as past experiences, both personal and openly accessible. I can't even begin to imagine why you actually believe something like this. It completely surpasses my level of understanding, quite obviously, so my apologies.

Best of Luck,
-Jess

Heh. I might be with you on that, OnceHour.

To the best of my understanding, Massaria is
saying Icculus will be unfair.

To the best of my understanding, Jess is
saying he might be fair, or he might not be.

I'm saying Jess is more likely to be correct than
Massaria :)

However, OnceHour, if what you're saying is
"so what?"...

I agree.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Well, that's just it. The worry at hand seems to be that Andrew's decisions are biased by those that pay him. If it's that big of a deal to you, start your own advertising fund and influence him yourself. You can always clean up bad information with good information, but silence is just the same as leaving the shhit on the street.

Matt seems to need the guidance of a PR person in regards to how he acts on forums, but he's got a pretty sound game going. The environment encourages people to buy stuff (namely skills), just like the environment of the old pay by the hour games (Cosrin anyone?) used to encourage you to constantly play to suck every last drop of money out of you. It may seem immoral, but people pay this money knowing this ahead of time. Even as a newbie I could tell it'd take a hell of a lot of credits to get anywhere in Aetolia, so I just stopped playing. There's not some switcheroo in the game that suddenly links to your paypal account. People pay out of their own pocket and they know what they're.

That aside, all this nitpicking over Matt and even Andrew over the years is just being done on a board where maybe 1 - 10% of the playing population even reads. Few that actually read here are likely to play IRE games, and the ones that do will just see these as the whiney, drawn out flamefests that they are. You're essentially muttering under your collective breaths rather than doing anything about it.

There was talk a while back about getting a GodWars 2 ad fund up to counter the Diku ads. What happened to it? If someone wants to make a site touting the evils of IRE, I'd gladly host it. I might even throw in an advertising campaign for it here just to help people get their message across. I don't really feel strong enough against IRE to ever even consider writing it, but I'd be happy to host it on the chance that it might help these boards go back to the productive state they used to be.

-Once

Well, I just learned the front page is exclusively IRE advertising only. I guess there's no room for dissenting opinions ;).

It will be a tight contest for Verbose Poster of the Year between Massaria, Mann_Jess and Kingarthyr (although Kingarthyr seems to have lost a bit of ground of late).

So who will take out the crown? Who will be able to spit out a thousand words on something mere mortals are only able to write one sentence on?

Personally.. I'm sitting here wondering what the hell any of the bickering is going to accomplish? I'm no defender of IRE, especially after Matt flamed me on the forums and offered to host TMC elsewhere =) He used to pay us too, did that mean I would have done anything he asked of me? no. Does it mean Icculus will? Probably not. Everyone has thier limits.

Did it lend Matt some influence on my opinions regarding certain things when he did pay me? Of course it did. Does it way in with Icculus, anyone would be a fool to think it doesn't. I still don't see how we get from the obvious to him being Matt's lap dog though.

First rule of humanity, stipped bare, and without all the BS.. as nice as people are too others, they will always look after #1.. themselves. Matt does, I do, Icculus does, along with _every_ other species in nature.

What Icculus will do remains to be seen - I've always found him to honor any agreement we have made, and to me - that is really all that matters.

All I see here, personally - now that I can actually speak candidly on this forum without fear of looking bad (read: I no longer care =) Is a shining example of why this community is going to hell. You all have opinions, some of you can express them properly, and most of you can't.

Personally I find the whole thing a bit hipocritical on both sides of the argument - Matt - you intentionally cause this kind of behaviour with your provoking nature on the forums. You are assisting in the destruction of the very community (mudding in general) that you make a living from. This is utterly brain dead.

The community itself is so busy whining about IRE, that they have ceased to create anything that can counter it.

If both sides would use the same drive they use against eachother to create, and sustain this community, it would not be in the sorry state which we now find it.

Agree .. Disagree.. whatever, but think about it.

Later, Have a Merry Christmas everyone.
-D.

hmpf. Someone tell me why jess' posts are apparently immune to replies!?

Anyway, I'm calling you, jess, a liar because you obviously were. If you can't handle being called on it, don't lie or pay attention to what you've written in the past. Your statement: "And by the way... for the last time. I never, ever, ever said he probably will be anything. *I* am not speculating over future events. I am presenting *possibilities*. " was in a comment to the main post - how the hell do you expect me to link it to a point you've made in the post. Even now I can't tell to which point you're referring.

As for you having provided examples of your opinion while I have not.
BS.

As for you having provided logical proof while I have not.
BS once again.

Wolfpaw wrote:
Did it lend Matt some influence on my opinions regarding certain things when he did pay me? Of course it did. Does it way in with Icculus, anyone would be a fool to think it doesn't. I still don't see how we get from the obvious to him being Matt's lap dog though.

I've never said Andrew were anybody's lap dog - only that he is under influence from Matt - perhaps, even likely - to a degree that will cause him to be unfair in certain situations.
I consider Andrew to be a stand-up guy. Obviously he'll make the right calls in most cases - the clear ones. But once in a while he's gonna come across a case that's a matter of 'who do you trust/like' - and that's when he'll fall through, or so I believe.

...and a very merry christmas to you too, all of you! :)

Mass.

I consider Andrew to be a stand-up guy. Obviously he'll make the right calls in most cases - the clear ones. But once in a while he's gonna come across a case that's a matter of 'who do you trust/like' - and that's when he'll fall through, or so I believe

What...?!? you mean .. Icculus can be biased.. and not entirely fair 100% of the time? My images of him lie in tatters...

<runs off crying>

Since your pointing out his moral flaws.. I suppose yours are beyond reproach? You've never made an unfair judgement? The reason why you did is really not relevant.

Here's a true story for you:

My 12 year old came home a month ago yapping that his teacher gave him a C in one class because he didn't like him, it wasn't fair.. so on and so forth. So perhaps you need the same advice he got:

"Fairness is an illusion we create for our children, so they learn how to share. It does _not_ exist in the real world."

Your boss won't be fair when he fires you because hes having a bad day, the judge won't be fair when he convicts you of something you didn't do, or gives custody of your kids to your X.. it won't be fair when someone robs you on the street, or steals your car.. etc.

It's a cop out.

Grow up. He provides a site, not a handbook on morals. I find the guy to be as I've already said - very trustworthy.. not to mention I consider him a good friend. This whole discussion on if he's fair or he isn't is just completely useless. He puts up with alot of *CENSORED* from this place, maybe you should just appreciate that and shut your trap. Personally, I made more then he did out of this community, and you'll notice that I quit doing it. If you think its 'all about the money' your a fool.

-D.

Andrew probably is a stand up guy, but the fact of the matter is that you can't advertise on the front page because it's purely IRE territory. I sent a mail inquiring about purchasing a year's advertising and was basically blown off and told it was exclusive and wouldn't change.

Lately it seems as if the entire site is just a good vehicle for driving traffic to IRE and maybe a few other minor advertiser's games rather than providing utility to the community. This place has really slipped into mediocrity compared to its old days.

I recommend anyone worthwhile to have a look at mudlab.org or consider creating their own site. I'd be happy to host the site for you. Mudlab in particular seems to succeed so well because there's no advertiser influence on the admin so there's nowhere for them to sway.

The sway here however seems to be tremendous. The majority of the better forum posters seem to only come by to catch the occasional flame. God forbid you're looking for ideas, interesting info, or technical help. This site has stooped as low as TopMudSites and has degraded into a *CENSORED* slinging contest.

Be honest with yourself though, it's not going to change. Upsetting his main advertiser would be very bad for Andrew, even if it does alien his most diehard users. From the search engine, to banning/deleting dissenting posts, and even exclusive IRE only advertising areas; All of it shows that he's taking what his advertiser wants to heart. Lapboy, greedy capitalist, or wayward hobbyist, I don't know. But regardless, if you truly want change there's no point sticking around flaming each other for i. That's obviously not working and hasn't worked for years.

Let's be honest with ourselves though. It's not going to change. Upsetting his main advertiser would be very bad for Andrew, even if it does alienate his most diehard users. From the search engine html/"Sponsored Ads", to banning/deleting dissenting posts, and even exclusive IRE advertising areas we can see that Andrew takes what his advertiser wants to heart. Whether he's a lapboy, greedy capitalist, or just a lost hobbyist, I don't know. But regardless of any of that, if you truly want change around here, there's no point arguing about it in another flaming thread which half the population are already dreading when they see. There's no point blabbering on hoping your message might reach Andrew. That obviously hasn't worked for years.

The only real thing left to do is to leave. Find some place better, or make some place better. I recommend mudlab, but there are probably a lot of other burgeoning MUD sites out there. Andrew obviously won't listen to words, but he might just listen to silence.


-Once

having run a webforum for the past 3 years (www.godwars.net) and ran a free mud host for 6 months, i feel that i know both sides of this argument.

But at the end of the day this site belongs to Icculus and he is free to do what he wants when he wants. Some of the things that go on here may seem wrong to you, but i can guarantee that if you were in the same position as he is, you would be doing the same. IRE is a sponser for this site, why shouldnt they get advertisements on here? I dont agree with the mudlisting thing though!

You keep telling us to be honest with our selves, but maybe you should take a moment to think, Icculus doesnt have to run this site, but he does.

Yes i have had a couple of run-ins with him, but id far sooner post on mudconnector than mudmagic, least this site isnt ran by an obnoxious little dwarf!!

Hey!! How dare you insult the Dwarves like that? Three of them should stand on each other's shoulders and punch you inna nose!

mudlab is not without it's own problems, the owner has managed to alienate more than a few people. There have been other bids as well, the forums at MudBytes.net and MudSnippets.net are responses to unhappiness with IRE and MudMagic.

Thing is, though, this just further fragments what little community we have. Soon we'll need a directory for forums, and there'll be talk of how anyone can download free software and start....