Stock muds considered harmful

[Martin Keegan]

Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.

Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
the real world.

I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
the amount of variety offered to the players. If I wanted *lots* of
races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
Probably easy to get bored by, too.

If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
any state to compete with such forces at the moment?

We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

Quality not Quantity;
More Isn't Better.

Mk

--
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
@z=("OnpSipErOm","TeBp","rE");@s=reverse split'','012';
@l[shift@s]=scalar reverse$z[scalar@s-1]while(@s);
map{print ucfirst lc$_."\040"}split"p",join't',@l; print "\n";

[George Reese]

Aren't you the paragon of moral virtue!

Martin Keegan (mar...@cam.sri.com) wrote:
: Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving

: quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
: databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
: which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
: replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
:
: Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
: with freely available codebases.

It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
put up these muds, now, could it?

Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?

: The idea is that if the amount of

: effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
: the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
: those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
: the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
: competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
: the real world.
:
: I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
: to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
: they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
: codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
: the amount of variety offered to the players. If I wanted *lots* of
: races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
: mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
: Probably easy to get bored by, too.
:
: If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
: self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
: need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
: expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
: any state to compete with such forces at the moment?
:
: We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
: systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
: we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
: who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

Nice speech. Climb down from your soap box.

--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
i think i've reached that point/where every wish has come true/
and tired disguised oblivion/is everything i do
-the cure

[Ron Cole]

Ah. Ooooooookkkkkaaaaay.

Martin Keegan wrote:
>
> Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
>
> Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie

> with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of

> effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> the real world.
>
> I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
> to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
> they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
> codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
> the amount of variety offered to the players. If I wanted *lots* of
> races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
> mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
> Probably easy to get bored by, too.
>
> If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
> self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
> need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
> expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
> any state to compete with such forces at the moment?
>
> We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
> systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
> we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
> who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?
>

[Matthew Griffin]

I agree entirley with what you are saying - if you're a newbie then you
do tend to see alot of very similar looking MUDs some MUDs bill
themselves as heavily modified because in ads this is what gets players
to go there - considering that the first mud was created in essex in the
1970s you would have thought that there would be hundreds of types of
MUDS (code base wise) but this isn't the case - in fact there are
probably only about 200 publically available types of code and most are
just modified <something> with tassles on. The reason for this lack of
true diversity I feel is due to the fact that good programmers are
increasingly hard to find - most people that start up muds know little
about coding so change some areas and that's it. For a mud to be
radically different the only solution is to delete everything stock and
start 'anew'. Another problem is the lack of server space - the more
modified muds are on, arguably, paysite servers since having to pay for
a site commits you to trying to make it a success.

The more creative people become the better for all of us - there's also
another vein of people just copying ideas from other muds - like you
said some things are too easy, some people too lazy.

As far as microsoft goes I don't think they will take any interest in
MUDs at the moment since they are hard to turn a profit on - if it was a
definite industry where alot of money could be made then there would be
more pay muds but as it is these are generally restricted to online
services. The fact that muds are free to play is a definite boost
whether they are naff or spectacular. A quality mud guild would be a bad
idea because it would discriminate - noone can play every mud to every
level to judge how good or bad it is or how great the other players are
- some people have posted saying the top five muds! and instantly been
flamed for it.

Most MUDs start out as clones... it's what you do with them that counts
;)

DMG

In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan
<mar...@cam.sri.com> writes

+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk | Telnet: grumpy.mudservices.com 5320 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| New in your Neighbourhood! | http://www.ford3.mudservices.com/ |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+

[Brian James Green]

I think what MUD designers need to consider is how to make a MUD truly
different. Is it adding a few races, keeping an existing town and areas
for familiarity, and having some new areas for the a bit of originality?

IMHO, the problem lies in the fact that people don't design MUDs, the
just construct them. There is no overriding theme that controls all the
aspects of the MUD, there's no originality put into it. People take the
basics (which should probably be used as an example, not part of the
MUD) and then design a new MUD.

When my friends and I decided to design our own MUD, we didn't want to
use an established MUD and just copy it (although we had the resources
to do almost that). We wanted to come up with something very new and
interesting and not be another "We put up a MUD because we could."

But, the problem we are running into is a that there is very little
middle ground for people who want to concentrate on design instead of
mere construction. I will diverge from the general topic of MUDs, and
concentrate on LPs specifically, since that is where I have my knowledge.

When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost
too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
things are done).

With DGD/Melville setup we looked at, you could start with little
overhead baggage, but it seemed almost too sparse. We want to focus on
playability and design issues, not basic file handling and security
issues. I am juggling the design of this MUD with my other RL
responsibilities and don't have the time to code a lib from scratch.
It's almost worse to root through someone else's code and try to figure
out how/why they did what they did.

Perhaps if there were more middle ground, where you had the basics in
place, and they were elegantly done with good documentation, then we
would get more people focusing on design instead of just setting the
sucker up.

All IMHO, of course. Comments welcomed, flames ignored.

"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pch...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!

[ne...@itl.net]

In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>,

Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com> wrote:
>
> Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.

Hear hear! This is all too true. I've logged into many muds, and been
discouraged from ever visiting similar games again by what I've seen
(this is where my personal dislike of circle comes from, for instance -
I'm now reluctant to try any circle mud, since all those I have tried to
date have been very samey).

> Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
> with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
> effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> the real world.

Absolutely. Easy to get and setup code bases actually mean that anyone
who thinks running a mud would be 'cool' (for whatever reasons, lets not
divluge into those here, at least, not at this point), can have a bash at
it, if they can find or provide a site to put it on the net with. Perhaps
it does help those of us who can at least have a shot at creating
something worthwhile, but, I fear such people are in a vast minority.

> I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
> to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
> they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
> codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
> the amount of variety offered to the players. If I wanted *lots* of
> races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
> mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
> Probably easy to get bored by, too.

Heh. It's a typical mentality - more races, more classes, however, as you
said, I believe: More is not better!

> If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
> self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
> need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
> expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
> any state to compete with such forces at the moment?

As is, few of us are in such a state. I'll say that there are a few
excellent games out there run for free that could possibly compete in
terms of quality, however, not in terms of volume, or resources, of
course. Should, god forbid, a company like MS break into the market,
things would look very grim indeed.

> We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
> systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
> we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
> who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

What we want, what we need, are innovative ideas, well implemented to
create truly new, different and exciting games - new themes, new
implementations, originality. If all artists painted shades of the same
landscape, art would be very dull to study, and partake in indeed, let us
not allow mudding to fall into this dreary picture.

> Quality not Quantity;
> More Isn't Better.
>
> Mk
>
> --
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl
> @z=("OnpSipErOm","TeBp","rE");@s=reverse split'','012';
> @l[shift@s]=scalar reverse$z[scalar@s-1]while(@s);
> map{print ucfirst lc$_."\040"}split"p",join't',@l; print "\n";

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

Unnecessary remark helpfully deleted.

[George Reese]

> It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
> put up these muds, now, could it?
>
> Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?

Perhaps you shouldn't. But you can't disregard the fact that if it
hadn't been out there, it wouldn't have been "misused".

I'm not in a position to claim that the near ready-to-run mudlibs out
there are the primary source to the vast amount of really boring MUDs
out there, or if it would have been the same without them. It's quite
impossible to tell now; we can only guess.

My guess is that it's because it's getting late in September, and soon
all the children are in school. A mudlib more or less wouldn't make a
difference, scleg, even if "we" removed all the available mudlibs, it
wouldn't help.

J<>I
--
"What do you do for a living?" "I'm a spoon bender."
James Randi, imitating an imagined conversation
between Uri Geller and his father-in-law to be.

[der...@nerc1.nerc.com]

Ron Cole <clo...@concentric.net> wrote:

>Ah. Ooooooookkkkkaaaaay.

was there really any reason to quote the entire message and just write
1 line?

[Ron Cole]

Because that is just how my auto-reply works? It would be
like me asking you, why do you post your quotes ahead of what you are
saying? After all, I probably know what subject you are speaking on,
and if you have a long post I really don't want to re-read what I
already wrote (or what I have already read 27 times). Basicly, it
boils down to how you prefer to write and respond.

My.. this is going to three news groups, isn't it? We'll
probably get into trouble for spamming soon. Ah.. uh.. must think
of something on topic.. ah..

Oh! Okay! Criticizing stock MUDs is like criticizing Tolkien
because the concepts he created have been misused to create really bad
novels and movies, or Star Wars because people believe it stiffled
the movie industry.. pointless. On the one hand, a lot of really bad
rehashed garbage came from these "firsts." But on the other hand,
some people expanded those ideas, changed them, allowed those base
ideas to lead them to new ideas, which created a lot of new and
very interesting works (AD+D, some really good movies, etc..).

Don't blame the plumber if your toilet gets stopped up after
10 years of use. Blame your best friend that sat on it for two hours
after having too much beer and cheese wiz the night before...

[Nathan F. Yospe]

In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com>
wrote:

> Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
>

> Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
> with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
> effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> the real world.

<snip>

> Quality not Quantity;
> More Isn't Better.

Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
cannot elliminate the existing stock material... so how can we increase
the non stock competition? There have been an increasing number of non
stock muds, both with original codebases and areas, announced as of late,
but I have only seen a handful actually gaining attention. The mud
connector and its peers have been listing mildly modified ROMs and the
like as "original" codebases, and there is no way to determine if a MUD
is stock or not when logging on. I'm doing everything I can to discourage
stock MUDs based on Physmud++ before I release it... some assembly
required, etc... but the obvious problem is that someone will archive
areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?
--
Nathan F. Yospe | There is nothing wrong with being a sociopath. Its
yo...@hawaii.edu | getting caught thats a problem. Be a mad scientist
UH Manoa Physics | Write poetry. Be an artist. Plot world domination.
Biomedical Phys. | Panthers make great pets. Muhahahahahahahahahaha!!

[George Reese]

Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:
: When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost

: too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
: to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
: to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
: things are done).

Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
or hack it badly.

The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative
area building.

: With DGD/Melville setup we looked at, you could start with little

: overhead baggage, but it seemed almost too sparse. We want to focus on
: playability and design issues, not basic file handling and security
: issues. I am juggling the design of this MUD with my other RL
: responsibilities and don't have the time to code a lib from scratch.
: It's almost worse to root through someone else's code and try to figure
: out how/why they did what they did.

You are way too focused on what the mudlib has.

: Perhaps if there were more middle ground, where you had the basics in

: place, and they were elegantly done with good documentation, then we
: would get more people focusing on design instead of just setting the
: sucker up.
:
: All IMHO, of course. Comments welcomed, flames ignored.

Like I said, stop looking at the mudlib and look at yourself.
Creativity is up to you. Bare bones libs require you to do much more
coding. Well developed mudlibs impose nothing on you and allow you
instead to concentrate on area building.

[George Reese]

Jan Ingvoldstad (ja...@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: [George Reese]

: > It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
: > put up these muds, now, could it?
: >
: > Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?
:
: Perhaps you shouldn't. But you can't disregard the fact that if it
: hadn't been out there, it wouldn't have been "misused".

And some good muds would not be there either. You cannot have it both
ways.

: I'm not in a position to claim that the near ready-to-run mudlibs out

: there are the primary source to the vast amount of really boring MUDs
: out there, or if it would have been the same without them. It's quite
: impossible to tell now; we can only guess.
:
: My guess is that it's because it's getting late in September, and soon
: all the children are in school. A mudlib more or less wouldn't make a
: difference, scleg, even if "we" removed all the available mudlibs, it
: wouldn't help.

[Simon Miller]

On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Martin Keegan wrote:

> Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.

EVERY MUD must, by definition, have something in common with other MUDs,
otherwise it is not a MUD. There are so many MUDs areound these days that
there is bound to be some overlap between various MUDs, even if the ideas
were conceived separately.

> Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
> with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
> effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> the real world.

I take issue with the suggestion that using stock code is necessarily bad.
Would you write your own operating system to run your MUD? From scracth,
of course: you couldn't use any parts of BSD because it would be
unoriginal.

In "the real world", we often use Rapid Application Development tools to
get systems up and running as quickly as possible. We don't care if our
message boxes scream "This Was Written In Visual Basic". If you can do
the job in VB or Delphi, then you do it in VB or Delphi. This does NOT
make the applications any less usable than an application written in C++.

It may be more of a challenge to write the program in C++ but challenges
are for academics. Companies want results.

When coding for your own amusement, in which I include coding MUDs, it is
UP TO YOU which approach you take. It seems logical to me, to get the MUD
up and running using a stock code base and then start removing features
that you don't like and adding your own features. If you want a coding
challenge, then by all means write your MUD from scratch - but that isn't
necessarily the way to get a "good" MUD up and running (whatever you mean
by "good".)

If people run unmodified stock MUDs, then that is their loss. You don't
attract players by downloading Circle, compiling it and advertising it.
Furthermore the real fun is in the development side; the admin side is
more of a pain in the backside than anything else.

> I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
> to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
> they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
> codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
> the amount of variety offered to the players.

Don't knock them. Some are just Circle+Races+Classes+Skills. Others are
all that and more. I notice you don't provide any examples.

You seem to think that having some "standard" features is necessarily bad.
I disagree: if you were writing a new operating system, would you get rid
of concepts such as directories? (I do know of an OS that doesn't have
them - MCP - but it is awful to use IMO.)

> If I wanted *lots* of
> races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
> mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
> Probably easy to get bored by, too.

You obviously don't understand the idea of races. The idea is to create
distinct groups. Creating 65536 so-called races defeats the object:
are you trying to suggest that you are willing to think of credible names
and descriptions for 65,000 races?

> If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
> self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
> need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
> expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
> any state to compete with such forces at the moment?

Define "we".

What you fear is already upon is in the form of Dave Austin. However most
MUDs are free, run by private individuals and based on stock code bases.
I see no evidence of a drift away from that.

> We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
> systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
> we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
> who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

You're never going to stop people from startng third rate Circle MUDs. If
you think you can do better, then get on with it and see if you can
attract players away from the Circle MUDs that you hate so much.

In the meantime, stop criticising people who are running a MUD as a hobby.
They are perfectly entitled to do so and they can live without criticisms
from people such as yourself. Am I not correct in stating that the only
MUD that you have ever started was indeed based on a stock code base:
Mordor?

Simon.

[H. McDaniel]

In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com> says:
>
>Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
>quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
>databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
>which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
>replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.

I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
and usage of MUDs which add nothing.

However (contrary perhaps to your view) I see the establishment of MUD
guild(s) as a step in that direction since affiliation and high ranking in
the membership would be coveted and foster competition.

I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.

-M

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

I take it as a basis of morality that people are responsible for their
own actions, not other people's actions.

I also like freedom of choice. Don't like a stock mud? Go play
something else, or go run something else. Don't like to spend 1000
hours of unpaid professional time before the first player logs in?
Then start with a stock mud.

Furey
m...@shout.net
"love without fear"

[Matt Chatterley]

On 25 Feb 1997, H. McDaniel wrote:

> Date: 25 Feb 1997 09:02:06 GMT
> From: "H. McDaniel" <mcda...@nwlink.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin, alt.mud, rec.games.mud.misc
> Subject: Re: Stock muds considered harmful

>
> In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com> says:
> >
> >Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> >quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> >databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> >which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> >replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
>
> I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
> keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
> and usage of MUDs which add nothing.

ABsolutely undoubtably, yup.. but how to do this is a tricky matter.

> However (contrary perhaps to your view) I see the establishment of MUD
> guild(s) as a step in that direction since affiliation and high ranking in
> the membership would be coveted and foster competition.
>
> I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
> members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
> in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
> to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.
>
>
> -M
>
>

Actually, I think some sort of organisation has both it's ups and downs.
The mudding community (gawd, that term sounds pompous!) should remain as
open as it is now, if at all possible, whilst this sort of central 'guild'
idea would be potentially excellent.. it's certainly a matter I'd like to
hear more thoughts on. :)

Regards,

-Matt Chatterley
also: mch...@hotmail.com
http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html

"There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home"
-Ken Olsen (1977)

[Greg Munt]

> [George 'I am God' Reese]

>
> Aren't you the paragon of moral virtue!

WTF is it with you, George? You seem to take nearly everything anyone says as
a personal attack! And then you moan when your blatantly imflammatory comments
are dealt with appropiately. Your posts range from mildly annoying to anger-
inducing. Your posts in this thread inflict the latter state.

: [Martin Keegan]
:
: Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
: with freely available codebases.

> It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who

> put up these muds, now, could it?
>
> Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?

WTF shouldnt you take responsibility for it? Someone has to. Of course I am
not suggesting that you monitor all of your code's offspring - but taking steps
to reduce its misuse would help the situation no end, im sure.

> Nice speech. Climb down from your soap box.

I'm sure you're a nice guy George - it's just on here, you come across as such
a wanker.

: [Brian James Green]

:
: When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost
: too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
: to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
: to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
: things are done).

> Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
> detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
> is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
> driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
> hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
> or hack it badly.

Another thing, George. Just because you disagree with someone, it DOES NOT
automatically make them wrong. Become a bit more open-minded, and maybe I
wont switch off thinking 'Oh God, not more of George's bullshit' when you post.

> The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative
> area building.
>

> You are way too focused on what the mudlib has.

Or maybe, just possibly (unlikely, though, im sure), *you* are too focused
on area-building as the only way to create a unique mud.

> Creativity is up to you.

Thats very true, George. But preventing *your* code being used to create crap
is (to a certain degree) up to *you*.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T H E F R O N T I E R S P R O J E C T

http://www.uni-corn.demon.co.uk telnet://linux2.cms.shu.ac.uk:9999

A planned Internet & MUD resource. YOU can contribute: see web for details.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greg Munt]

> [H. McDaniel]

>
> I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
> keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
> and usage of MUDs which add nothing.

Here, here! Washing your hands of your code after its release is nothing short
of utter irresponsibility. There is a precedent for this - Simon Marsh has
revoked permission for use of his code to a number of EW2-based talkers (or so
I am led to believe)

> I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
> members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
> in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
> to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.

My only concern is the subjective nature of the word 'good'. Also, if this
'association' were to exist, there would be a danger of what the association
deemed 'good' and of 'quality' to damage the mud community as much as the use
of StockMUD is currently doing. The guidelines would have to be thought about
very carefully indeed. But even so, I am sure the restrictions they brought
would be unwelcome to some - and not neccessarily solely to the non-creative
wannabes.

[Greg Munt]

> [Simon Miller]

>
> I take issue with the suggestion that using stock code is necessarily bad.

I dont believe that is what Martin is suggesting at all. There is nothing wrong
with the use of stock code (although it is not an ideal, IMHO), it is what you
do with it that counts. Adding more of what is already there, rather than
adding new, original and unique features IS neccessarily bad.

> If you want a coding challenge, then by all means write your MUD from
> scratch - but that isn't necessarily the way to get a "good" MUD up and
> running (whatever you mean by "good".)

Agreed. To a large extent, its not the code that makes a good mud, its the
ideas behind it. This thread is concerned with the lack of ideas freeriding on
stable StockMUDs.

> If people run unmodified stock MUDs, then that is their loss.

Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more crap
muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies away.

After reading Martin's post last night, I toured round a few muds, asking them
a few questions that it had raised. The average reaction was a defensive one,
unfortunately. There was even one place (a stock EW2), which, when faced with
the question 'Do you think stock muds are damaging the mud community?', replied
'I dont really care to be quite honest!'. Apathy is a dangerous thing,
especially when dressed up as wilful selfishness.

[Greg Munt]

: [Martin Keegan]
:
: Quality not Quantity;
: More Isn't Better.

> [Nathan S. Yospe]

>
> Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
> cannot elliminate the existing stock material...

You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.

> so how can we increase the non stock competition?

The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
and PirateMUD?

> there is no way to determine if a MUD is stock or not when logging on.

You are missing the point I think. If we couldnt tell if these muds (lower
case, purlease;) were stock, there would be no need for this thread.

> the obvious problem is that someone will archive
> areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
> more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?

You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : [Martin Keegan]

: :
: : Quality not Quantity;
: : More Isn't Better.
:
: > [Nathan S. Yospe]
: >
: > Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
: > cannot elliminate the existing stock material...
:
: You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
: stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.

You cannot make such a distinction. If I were to place in my license
'you must use the lib creatively' then every admin would live in
constant fear of me deeming their mud uncreative. Or worse, that I
would simply get pissed off at them.

Subjective issues have no place in a licensing agreement.

: > so how can we increase the non stock competition?

:
: The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
: with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
: muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
: and PirateMUD?

There are a ton of 'from scratch' muds. Nightmare would be one of
them. Do you mean driver too? Well, besides the question 'What is
the point', you would have Genesis. The fact that others used its
code is not relevant to the fact that it is from scratch.

Next, at what point do you define 'from scratch'? If it is the
server, then comparing a 'from scratch' Java mud to a 'from scratch'
LPMud is unfair. You are imposing that the LPMud must write its own
interpreter while the JavaMud does not.

: > there is no way to determine if a MUD is stock or not when logging on.

:
: You are missing the point I think. If we couldnt tell if these muds (lower
: case, purlease;) were stock, there would be no need for this thread.
:
: > the obvious problem is that someone will archive
: > areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
: > more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?
:
: You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
: egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
: regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.

Just who are those 'egotists'?

It seems to me donating your labour to allow people to start muds they
would not otherwise be able to start is an act of generousity, not
ego.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > [George 'I am God' Reese]

: >
: > Aren't you the paragon of moral virtue!
:
: WTF is it with you, George? You seem to take nearly everything anyone says as
: a personal attack! And then you moan when your blatantly imflammatory comments
: are dealt with appropiately. Your posts range from mildly annoying to anger-
: inducing. Your posts in this thread inflict the latter state.

I did not take it as a personal attack. I did take it as rather
sanctimonious, however. Thus my comment. You do not think it was a
holier-than-thou post?

: : [Martin Keegan]

: :
: : Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
: : with freely available codebases.
:
: > It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
: > put up these muds, now, could it?
: >
: > Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?
:
: WTF shouldnt you take responsibility for it? Someone has to. Of course I am
: not suggesting that you monitor all of your code's offspring - but taking steps
: to reduce its misuse would help the situation no end, im sure.

Whatever. This is completely ridiculous. I am sure you have the
solution to prevent people from misusing my code?

: > Nice speech. Climb down from your soap box.

:
: I'm sure you're a nice guy George - it's just on here, you come across as such
: a wanker.

Because why? I told him to climb down from his soap box when he is
pontificating like an elitist? Seems like it was an appropriate
comment to me. Sounds like you are being the wanker here.

: : [Brian James Green]

: :
: : When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost
: : too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
: : to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
: : to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
: : things are done).
:
: > Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
: > detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
: > is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
: > driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
: > hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
: > or hack it badly.
:
: Another thing, George. Just because you disagree with someone, it DOES NOT
: automatically make them wrong. Become a bit more open-minded, and maybe I
: wont switch off thinking 'Oh God, not more of George's bullshit' when you post.

I wrote the lib. I imagine that I am in fact the authority on how it
works. Call me silly, but isn't that the way things generally work?

: > The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative

: > area building.
: >
: > You are way too focused on what the mudlib has.
:
: Or maybe, just possibly (unlikely, though, im sure), *you* are too focused
: on area-building as the only way to create a unique mud.

I said best way, not only way.

: > Creativity is up to you.

:
: Thats very true, George. But preventing *your* code being used to create crap
: is (to a certain degree) up to *you*.

This is truely worthy of a hearty laugh. Explain to me, Herr Genius,
how do I do this?

[Matt Chatterley]

[Comments by George Reese and Greg Munt snipped]

Please lets not have this thread break down into another battle between Mr
Reese and, I shall term them his 'opposition'. I'll pass no real comments
other than to say that points raised by both those who wrote in this
article originally are very valid (and George's perceptions of how he
believes the lib that he distributed could have been best used are quite
accurate, depending on the actual aims of the person trying to use it,
lets face it, he *is* the authority on NM).

Anyways, thats my little turn on this particular soapbox, you both have
very valid points to make (and valuable contributions), but please, let's
not break down to another long flamewar.

[TALEA]

On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:

> Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : > [George 'I am God' Reese]
> : >
> : > Aren't you the paragon of moral virtue!
> :
> : WTF is it with you, George? You seem to take nearly everything anyone says as
> : a personal attack! And then you moan when your blatantly imflammatory comments
> : are dealt with appropiately. Your posts range from mildly annoying to anger-
> : inducing. Your posts in this thread inflict the latter state.
>
> I did not take it as a personal attack. I did take it as rather
> sanctimonious, however. Thus my comment. You do not think it was a
> holier-than-thou post?

<snip for the sake of sanity>

I am starting to believe that the only time I post to any of the mud
groups is when George starts spouting gospel. If I acknowledge him
as the mightiest of the mighty..the one and only source of any info
worth having...do you think he might take pity, and go away? Just a
forlorn hope..I am still tenaciously clinging onto a tiny piece of
reality..which means I know he will be back. *sigh* In order to stay
a teensy bit in thread, I actually agree that holding George responsible
for what is done with his creation is kinda like holding the creators
of nuclear power responsible for Hiroshima. Once it is out of the bottle,
people of all kinda will use, and misuse it. If a bunch of people with
no imagination want to spawn a slew of clone-muds, there really isn't a
whole lot Reese can do. Of course _we_ can do something. Don't play them.

talea aka talia aka dross beneath George's hooves..err feet.

[Matt Chatterley]

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Greg Munt wrote:

> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:00:20 +0100
> From: Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>

> Newsgroups: rec.games.mud.admin, alt.mud, rec.games.mud.misc
> Subject: Re: Stock muds considered harmful
>

> > [Simon Miller]
> >
> > I take issue with the suggestion that using stock code is necessarily bad.
>
> I dont believe that is what Martin is suggesting at all. There is nothing wrong
> with the use of stock code (although it is not an ideal, IMHO), it is what you
> do with it that counts. Adding more of what is already there, rather than
> adding new, original and unique features IS neccessarily bad.

I must agree here, there's nothing at all wrong with using stock code as
the base for your mud. However, simply getting code, compiling, putting
online, is a very poor way to start a mud, so is making 'major changes'
like adding a half dozen races, maybe a class, and claiming it's an
original game.

> > If you want a coding challenge, then by all means write your MUD from
> > scratch - but that isn't necessarily the way to get a "good" MUD up and
> > running (whatever you mean by "good".)
>
> Agreed. To a large extent, its not the code that makes a good mud, its the
> ideas behind it. This thread is concerned with the lack of ideas freeriding on
> stable StockMUDs.

Yes. Many people though, even competent coders (like myself for instance)
could not write their own lib from the ground up.. having a base to work
from is an excellent aid -- and the ideas point is very valid. We should
be much more concerned with the unoriginal games lying about (ie those
that all look the same and feel similar) rather than the fact that some
have used stock code (and then added to it well, ie new areas for one
example).

> > If people run unmodified stock MUDs, then that is their loss.
>
> Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more crap
> muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies away.

Doubtlessly.

> After reading Martin's post last night, I toured round a few muds, asking them
> a few questions that it had raised. The average reaction was a defensive one,
> unfortunately. There was even one place (a stock EW2), which, when faced with
> the question 'Do you think stock muds are damaging the mud community?', replied
> 'I dont really care to be quite honest!'. Apathy is a dangerous thing,
> especially when dressed up as wilful selfishness.

Oh dear.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> T H E F R O N T I E R S P R O J E C T
>
> http://www.uni-corn.demon.co.uk telnet://linux2.cms.shu.ac.uk:9999
>
> A planned Internet & MUD resource. YOU can contribute: see web for details.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

[TALEA]

oops..people did not 'create' nuclear power...they discovered it. (figured
I had better correct myself before the wrath of Reese decended upon me.

talia

[H. McDaniel]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970225...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>, Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> says:
>
>> [H. McDaniel]
>>
>> I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
>> keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
>> and usage of MUDs which add nothing.
>
>Here, here! Washing your hands of your code after its release is nothing short
>of utter irresponsibility. There is a precedent for this - Simon Marsh has
>revoked permission for use of his code to a number of EW2-based talkers (or so
>I am led to believe)
>
>> I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
>> members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
>> in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
>> to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.
>
>My only concern is the subjective nature of the word 'good'. Also, if this
>'association' were to exist, there would be a danger of what the association
>deemed 'good' and of 'quality' to damage the mud community as much as the use
>of StockMUD is currently doing. The guidelines would have to be thought about
>very carefully indeed. But even so, I am sure the restrictions they brought
>would be unwelcome to some - and not neccessarily solely to the non-creative
>wannabes.

You bring up a good point. Ideally there would not be a single guild. But
neither would there be 100 ;) OTOH there could be seperate guilds for
some of the main genres out there (ie: chat only, ancient fantasy, future
fantasy, etc.) Hmm. Perhaps these seperate guilds could even have a
convention or agreed upon shared standards.... yet a given game could
only be a member (and have voting privledges) in ONE.

Yes... "good" is very subjective. I do not personally think for instance that
the age of components in a given game when added up says something
about how good the game is. It depends on the game atmosphere, which
is largely determined by rules (or lack thereof), how these are enforced and
as far as those of us who might just visit a game here or there: what claims
did the owner make. If some guy claims to have a "unique" game.. it had
better be in many ways unique.

How to judge/rank games? When i was thinking about this for the guild
a year ago, I found it difficult to come up with very many concrete factors.
I came to the conclusion that one should do it keeping in mind that it is
a service to the members (which are MUDs) first, players second. But
also keeping in mind that players can best judge the value of a game.

Problem is that there is lots of room for cheating if the voting isn't setup
properly.

Anyhow, if I were running a guild I wouldn't deny memebrship to someone,
unless over the course of time they refused to improve their game(s). The
idea (from my perspective) is to lift up the stock games (if possible.)... By
motivating their owners to do better. You do this through incentives. Take
the AAA (motor association's) ranking of Hotel's, Inns and the like. Their
highest rankings are coveted and major advertising pluses for winners. But
who brags about getting a single star ranking from AAA?

Hmm -- just some musings,

-McDaniel

[David Stott]

On 24 Feb 1997, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

> Unnecessary remark helpfully deleted.
> [George Reese]
>

> > It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
> > put up these muds, now, could it?
> > Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?

> Perhaps you shouldn't. But you can't disregard the fact that if it

I, personally, do not believe that the author / programmer should not be
responsible for anything released to the public. However, (if) there are
issues about people just simply copying the code 'as is', then why not
only distribute the simple basics to the world in general. Now I realise
that this implies that all 'stock muds' are run by competent programmers,
but it doesn't require a degree in computer science to, for example write
some LPC or such.

> hadn't been out there, it wouldn't have been "misused".

I belive that the most problem with originality, is the stock
databases that tend to get distributed with various mudlibs. This means
that just about all stock muds have a 'midgaard' section. Now, among
other things, this allows various players to 'learn' entire worlds and
abuse this knowledge on other muds. For example, how would someone who
had just put their 'all new MUD' online, react to someone spending several
hours online and getting to immortal before the administrators had even
got used to being administrators?

> I'm not in a position to claim that the near ready-to-run mudlibs out
> there are the primary source to the vast amount of really boring MUDs
> out there, or if it would have been the same without them. It's quite
> impossible to tell now; we can only guess.

Yes, the damage has already been done. Although 'damage' might have been
too strong a word, it gets my meaning across.

> My guess is that it's because it's getting late in September, and soon

eh? forgive me for missing some hidden joke or sarcasm but I completely
fail to grasp this. sorry.

> all the children are in school. A mudlib more or less wouldn't make a
> difference, scleg, even if "we" removed all the available mudlibs, it
> wouldn't help.

ds

[Matthew Griffin]

Since you can have MUDs that contain OLC which allow you to build areas
easier then why can't you create a MUD that has OLC - only for commands
and new modifications. True there would be no easy way to create a guild
using this OLC method if it were to have true flexibility but a MUD that
was designed to be soley OLC from the start so that even non programmers
could 'sorta' modify the code and areas then this would eliminate many
of the stock MUDs and the stock muds left would be because the imps
couldn't be bothered.

Coding this thing would be a whole new ball game but while some people
protest their hate for OLC it could work... it would also be unique - a
MUD that anyone can modify... of course copyright wise only the mud OLC
engine would be copyrighted. That would revolutionise the whole MUD
making process.

Matt

[Greg Munt]

> : You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
> : stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.
>

> [George Reese]

>
> You cannot make such a distinction. If I were to place in my license
> 'you must use the lib creatively' then every admin would live in
> constant fear of me deeming their mud uncreative. Or worse, that I
> would simply get pissed off at them.
>
> Subjective issues have no place in a licensing agreement.

Correct, George. But I never mentioned what has a place in a licensing
agreement. What I was saying was that StockMUDs dont deserve to be
'eliminated', even if it was possible to do so - since StockMUDs can be
used creatively. Creative and non-creative uses of a StockMUD need to be
distinguished, since one is very much desired, and the other is very much
undesired.

> : > so how can we increase the non stock competition?
> :
> : The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
> : with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
> : muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
> : and PirateMUD?
>
> There are a ton of 'from scratch' muds. Nightmare would be one of
> them. Do you mean driver too? Well, besides the question 'What is
> the point', you would have Genesis. The fact that others used its
> code is not relevant to the fact that it is from scratch.

Perhaps I should have made my question clearer. I meant scratch muds
either running, or in development.

> : You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
> : egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
> : regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.
>
> Just who are those 'egotists'?
>
> It seems to me donating your labour to allow people to start muds they
> would not otherwise be able to start is an act of generousity, not
> ego.

It is generosity if you intend it to provide benefit to the mud
community. It is egotism where you see ppl using it to harm the
community, and do not care.

Your question of how to stop ppl misusing code is a valid one. You cant,
obviously, stop people doing it - but you can discourage it, or provide
an environment where ppl are more likely to be creative.

Things you could do are:

* Offer awards to the most original use of your code.

* Revoke the privilege of use of your code to those blatantly giving the
code (and the community) a bad name, in extreme circumstances.

* Offer technical assistance (or set up a mailing list to provide an
equivalent service) for those genuinely interested in creating
original and unique games derived from your code.

Can anyone think of anything else that might help reduce the problem?

[George Reese]

TALEA (Ta...@cris.com) wrote:

:

I post my opinion, you say you agree with it, and yet you take time to
flame me ANYWAYS? What an asshole.

[George Reese]

David Stott (ds...@york.ac.uk) wrote:

: On 24 Feb 1997, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
:
: > Unnecessary remark helpfully deleted.
: > [George Reese]
: >
: > > It could not be in the hands of the creatively-challenged people who
: > > put up these muds, now, could it?
: > > Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?
: > Perhaps you shouldn't. But you can't disregard the fact that if it
:
: I, personally, do not believe that the author / programmer should not be
: responsible for anything released to the public. However, (if) there are
: issues about people just simply copying the code 'as is', then why not
: only distribute the simple basics to the world in general. Now I realise
: that this implies that all 'stock muds' are run by competent programmers,
: but it doesn't require a degree in computer science to, for example write
: some LPC or such.

That is the way Nightmare ships. You have to build your own areas for
it to run. You have to do some customization.

: > hadn't been out there, it wouldn't have been "misused".

:
: I belive that the most problem with originality, is the stock
: databases that tend to get distributed with various mudlibs. This means
: that just about all stock muds have a 'midgaard' section.

You are confusing mudlibs with domains. In LPMud, a mudlib is a mud's
structure. The domains form its character. Midgaard would be an
LPMud domain.

: Now, among

: other things, this allows various players to 'learn' entire worlds and
: abuse this knowledge on other muds. For example, how would someone who
: had just put their 'all new MUD' online, react to someone spending several
: hours online and getting to immortal before the administrators had even
: got used to being administrators?

That is a sick mud that is that easy to learn. But they do exist.

: > I'm not in a position to claim that the near ready-to-run mudlibs out

: > there are the primary source to the vast amount of really boring MUDs
: > out there, or if it would have been the same without them. It's quite
: > impossible to tell now; we can only guess.
:
: Yes, the damage has already been done. Although 'damage' might have been
: too strong a word, it gets my meaning across.

And there are a lot of good mudsout there today that would not exist
if it were not for stock code as well.

[George Reese]

Matt Chatterley (ne...@itl.net) wrote:
: Anyways, thats my little turn on this particular soapbox, you both have

: very valid points to make (and valuable contributions), but please, let's
: not break down to another long flamewar.

I would love nothing more :) But it seems there is a group of people
who like slamming me any time I post. I certainly will defend myself
against such twerps.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of

: > : stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.
: >
: > [George Reese]
: >
: > You cannot make such a distinction. If I were to place in my license
: > 'you must use the lib creatively' then every admin would live in
: > constant fear of me deeming their mud uncreative. Or worse, that I
: > would simply get pissed off at them.
: >
: > Subjective issues have no place in a licensing agreement.
:
: Correct, George. But I never mentioned what has a place in a licensing
: agreement. What I was saying was that StockMUDs dont deserve to be
: 'eliminated', even if it was possible to do so - since StockMUDs can be
: used creatively. Creative and non-creative uses of a StockMUD need to be
: distinguished, since one is very much desired, and the other is very much
: undesired.

I address this later...

: > : > so how can we increase the non stock competition?

: > :
: > : The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
: > : with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
: > : muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
: > : and PirateMUD?
: >
: > There are a ton of 'from scratch' muds. Nightmare would be one of
: > them. Do you mean driver too? Well, besides the question 'What is
: > the point', you would have Genesis. The fact that others used its
: > code is not relevant to the fact that it is from scratch.
:
: Perhaps I should have made my question clearer. I meant scratch muds
: either running, or in development.

Those muds are both running.

There are A LOT of from scratch muds out there. There simply are a
hell of a lot more stock muds out there or derivatives of stock muds.

: > : You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have

: > : egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
: > : regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.
: >
: > Just who are those 'egotists'?
: >
: > It seems to me donating your labour to allow people to start muds they
: > would not otherwise be able to start is an act of generousity, not
: > ego.
:
: It is generosity if you intend it to provide benefit to the mud
: community. It is egotism where you see ppl using it to harm the
: community, and do not care.
:
: Your question of how to stop ppl misusing code is a valid one. You cant,
: obviously, stop people doing it - but you can discourage it, or provide
: an environment where ppl are more likely to be creative.
:
: Things you could do are:
:
: * Offer awards to the most original use of your code.

Award them what? Money? You have to be kidding me. I am not going
to give people my code then pay them to use it right.

: * Revoke the privilege of use of your code to those blatantly giving the

: code (and the community) a bad name, in extreme circumstances.

You can't do this without putting it the license. But you stated
above that you don't want anything in the license. You can't have it
both ways.

And I have stated why I think the license is a bad place.

Furthermore, I do not have the time to police the net to make
subjective judgments on every single NM mud.

: * Offer technical assistance (or set up a mailing list to provide an

: equivalent service) for those genuinely interested in creating
: original and unique games derived from your code.

Been there, done that.

: Can anyone think of anything else that might help reduce the problem?

No. I do not think there is anything that I should be doing. I am
sorry you find that egotistical. I think it is unbeliebably fucked up
to suggest allowing people to use something useful away for free
obliges them to give even more of themselves.

[Abigail]

On 25 Feb 1997 00:19:29 GMT, George Reese wrote in rec.games.mud.admin,alt.mud,rec.games.mud.misc:
++ Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:
++ : When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost
++ : too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
++ : to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
++ : to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
++ : things are done).
++
++ Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
++ detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
++ is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
++ driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
++ hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
++ or hack it badly.
++
++ The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative
++ area building.

I have to agree with Descartes on this one. It's the areas that make
muds unique, not the core lib or the driver. One of my wishes is
to write a core mudlib that allows you to make many different kinds
of muds, without needing to change the core itself.

Abigail

[Mike McGaughey]

Last Tue, Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> [George 'I am God' Reese]

>> Why should I take responsibility for the misuse of my code?
>

> WTF shouldnt you take responsibility for it? Someone has to.

George is prepared to give away his code as a public service (he
doesn't have to do that, you know). YOU think he should add
conditions to its use to ensure that muds based on his code meet
certain `quality' standards. However, if he were to impose such
conditions, he'd (rightly) be branded a fucking idiot by a sizeable
proportion of the MUD community before his code had ever left his
FTP site.

>> Creativity is up to you.
>
> Thats very true, George. But preventing *your* code being used to
> create crap is (to a certain degree) up to *you*.

Tell that to the gcc project.

Mud builders can choose what sort of mud they run. Players can choose
which mud they play. It's not your perogative to impose conditions on
what sorts of muds other people run or play.

The appropriate mechanism to use (if any is necessary at all!) is
to write reviews of various muds, and make them available for public
discussion. Then people can decide whether or not *you* are a wanker.

Cheers,

Mike.

[Craig Sivils]

>We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
>systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
>we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
>who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

I do, there is enough "differences" on many muds that sometimes it's
nice to have a little something familiar to help you while you get
adjusted to the new environment.

You sound just as arrogant as people who declare themselves to be
experts at roleplaying and wish to set everyone else straight.

People like different things, some people think painfulmud (tm) is so
real that it's great, while others want cheesemud (tm) figuring that
since mudding is escapism, they should really escape reality.

Contrary to your snotty view of the world.

It's about fun. If they're having fun then what business is it of
yours if it's just poor ole "stock" fun?

Craig

[Adam Wiggins]

>Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we

>cannot elliminate the existing stock material... so how can we increase
>the non stock competition? There have been an increasing number of non
>stock muds, both with original codebases and areas, announced as of late,
>but I have only seen a handful actually gaining attention. The mud
>connector and its peers have been listing mildly modified ROMs and the
>like as "original" codebases, and there is no way to determine if a MUD
>is stock or not when logging on. I'm doing everything I can to discourage
>stock MUDs based on Physmud++ before I release it... some assembly
>required, etc... but the obvious problem is that someone will archive

>areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
>more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?

I suggest: The Twink Patrol(tm)

We need to get together a few dedicated (okay, maybe more than dedicated)
mudders with itchy trigger fingers and a desire to travel. Imbed a feature
in the software that is trackable by our TwinkDetector(tm) satellite system.
Upon receival of the new mud's location, one can log onto the new mud and
examine it for quality. Should it fail to meet expectations, the Twink
Patrol(tm) swings into action. Flying in the TwinkChopper(tm), they would
quickly home in on the offending mud's physical location. With the use
of high-powered riffles and armor-piercing ammunition, they can quickly
make sure that the implementor(s) of the mud NEVER cause any problems again.

Of course, finanicing it could be tricky. Perhaps we could start with a raid
on Medthievia's donation bin?

Seriously...I'm not too sure that releasing semi-functional software isn't a
bad idea. Release the mud with one tiny example area that shows how such
a thing is built, with 'features' in place that are totaly inane and useless,
but show how such things are done. Of course the problem arises when, as
you say, 3rd parties start archiving "real" muds and releasing them. I
suppose the best you could do is put some sort of clause against creating
stock packages like this into the license; most folks seem to be pretty
descent about following this, but of course, it only takes one to screw
things up.

I guess in the long run you mostly have to take it. The result of anything
getting more popular means that there is a flood of crap; this is the curse
of the "mass market", and muds haven't even reached any kind of mainstream
penetration yet. As it stands, probably less than 1/10th of all muds are
actually worth playing, and as few two dozen of those that are actually
really excellent. (Of course, this depends on what you're looking
for; I'm not really thinking of talkers and such, as I'm not sure how
you'd gauge the quality there except for the people who frequent it.)

Should we thank all the folks who run crap muds who, by being so numerous,
make it possible to be in the top 20% of muds by just writing a couple
from-scratch quality zones and making a couple major code changes?

[Travis Casey]

Matthew Griffin <oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Since you can have MUDs that contain OLC which allow you to build areas
>easier then why can't you create a MUD that has OLC - only for commands
>and new modifications. True there would be no easy way to create a guild
>using this OLC method if it were to have true flexibility but a MUD that
>was designed to be soley OLC from the start so that even non programmers
>could 'sorta' modify the code and areas then this would eliminate many
>of the stock MUDs and the stock muds left would be because the imps
>couldn't be bothered.

Well, actually, it's already been done in at least three different ways:

- LPmuds
Ok, they require programming, but LPC is meant to allow on-line creation
and modifying of new types of things in a way simpler than doing it in
plain C. Note for the flame-happy: I said it's *meant* to, not that it
*does*. How successful it is, is a matter of opinion.

- the TinyMUD family
Allow online creation of objects and attaching of scripts to them. Some
Tiny derivatives add another programming language level as well--notably
MUCKs with their MUF language.

- LPscript
A new method for creating objects on LPmuds, created by the people at
Lima. Allows people to set properties on objects with a simpler syntax
than the standard LPC syntax, and can also allow writing of scripts to
tell objects how to respond to things. For very complicated things,
allows inclusion of LPC code.

--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ System Manager, FSU CS department
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' (904) 644-4290; Room 101C Carothers
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) No one agrees with me. Not even me.
rec.games.design FAQ: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~casey/design.html

[Nathan F. Yospe]

In article <nU89pDAW...@oceanic.demon.co.uk>, Matthew Griffin
<oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> wrote:

:Since you can have MUDs that contain OLC which allow you to build areas
:easier then why can't you create a MUD that has OLC - only for commands
:and new modifications. True there would be no easy way to create a guild
:using this OLC method if it were to have true flexibility but a MUD that
:was designed to be soley OLC from the start so that even non programmers
:could 'sorta' modify the code and areas then this would eliminate many
:of the stock MUDs and the stock muds left would be because the imps
:couldn't be bothered.

:Coding this thing would be a whole new ball game but while some people
:protest their hate for OLC it could work... it would also be unique - a

:MUD that anyone can modify... of course copyright wise only the mud OLC
:engine would be copyrighted. That would revolutionise the whole MUD
:making process.

Erm. You just described the original concept behind Physmud++..... and
behind LPs, and MOOs, and I don't know how many other classes of MUD,
of various styles. And what is the point of a copyright on the creation
engine in particular? This could not, by any stretch of the imagination,
be coded into a Diku derivative with less effort than writing it from
scratch. I assume from your statements that you are a Diku player. If
you prefer the style of Dikus, of what is currently available and public,
LPC is the closest to what you describe. Physmud++ will be faster and
easier on your host computer's memory resources, but will need sorce code
level modifications to change anything as drastic as the player/character
interface, but a player with high enough permission access could add a
new guild system quite easilly. Create objecttype guildinfo,
edit guildinfo, create memberlist charitem members,
create member string guildname, create member channelinfo guildchannel,
and so forth... add member functions, activate, then create a handful of
instances... add the attribute of guild checking, perhaps, to the room
class (this requires second highest level permission) and go... from what
I know of LPs, this is possible in all of them as well. Er.. forgot.. you
might want to make sure that guildinfo inherits from infoobject... and
you will _have_ to add read/write/edit/create member functions, and a ref
name.

Just a little wake up call.. Dikus are not the only MUDs out there.
--
Nathan F. Yospe | There is nothing wrong with being a sociopath. Its
yo...@hawaii.edu | getting caught thats a problem. Be a mad scientist
UH Manoa Physics | Write poetry. Be an artist. Plot world domination.
Biomedical Phys. | Panthers make great pets. Muhahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Brian James Green]

In <5etb6h$4oj$1...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:

>Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:

[my observation of Nightmare snipped]

>Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any

>detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem

>is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the

>driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are

>hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done

>or hack it badly.

Perhaps I didn't communicate my original idea clearly enough. There
were several specifics that I didn't like about the Nightmare lib.
Probably the worst example is the limb-based combat (I don't like it, at
least not the way a lot of people implement it. I'm not saying it's
bad, or that Mr. Reese is terrible for putting it there, but that I
don't like it). Other examples are present, but I don't want to make an
issue of them right now.

>The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative

>area building.

But, what about other aspects? I've been a Dwarven Cleric on almost
every MUD I play. Is that original? Why not start fresh, define new
races, but do it intelligently? Wouldn't that give the world a better
"sense of realism" than just taking the stock races and planting them
into the MUD? What about classes, or mixtures of classes? What about
new skill sets?

What about stats? Why do I have to have the basic 6 (or 7, depending on
what version of AD&D/MUD lib you use)? Why can't I use a different set
of stats and change the way combat works?

What about combat in and of itself? Why can't I change that and make it
more original, not just "go, slay the creature, throw spells until its
dead, loot the corpse"? Why can't I even elimintate a lot of the
hack-n-slash if I wanted to, but keep the mechanics there because there
will be some combat and I like the given mechanics?

All these have little if anything to do with writing areas, but all are
important ways to make a MUD stand out from the rest, appear more unique.

[my observations of DGD snipped]

>You are way too focused on what the mudlib has.

But, that is what the 'lib is for, right? It is for aiding my design of
a unique MUD. Melville under DGD doesn't offer a lot of the
functionality I like. I would like to be able to use more to skip to
the bottom of a big file, I would like to have a better mail/board
editor, I would like a lot of things Melville doesn't support. All
these things would help in the design of an interesting and original
MUD, or would even help in "coding areas", as you seem to focus on.

>: Perhaps if there were more middle ground, where you had the basics in
>: place, and they were elegantly done with good documentation, then we
>: would get more people focusing on design instead of just setting the
>: sucker up.

>Like I said, stop looking at the mudlib and look at yourself.
>Creativity is up to you. Bare bones libs require you to do much more
>coding. Well developed mudlibs impose nothing on you and allow you
>instead to concentrate on area building.

But, Mr. Reese, the design of the gameplay is more than mere area coding.
If I thought area coding could make a good MUD, I would attempt to find
a coding position on a MUD I like and code good areas. I have before, I
am sure I could do it again. Yes, there is a large amount of the MUD's
originality that is derived from areas and the coding of them, but let
us not be too short-sighted and say that that is all there is.

I like Melville's premise, that you give the designers something simple
to work with. But, I like a bit more functionality and a bit more
freedom. I don't want aspects of the gameplay of the MUD (like the
limb-based combat example given before) to be forced upon me by the
design of the lib. I don't want non-area stock features to bog down my
MUD, either.

I truly want to bring my vision of a unique MUD into being.

(I speak for all the designers of the proposed Demonscape MUD, so any
"I, me, my" refers to all of our team and of course, to me specifically).

Again, comments welcomed.

"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pch...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!

[Peter Register]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970225...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>, Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I dont believe that is what Martin is suggesting at all. There is nothing wrong
>with the use of stock code (although it is not an ideal, IMHO), it is what you
>do with it that counts. Adding more of what is already there, rather than
>adding new, original and unique features IS neccessarily bad.

Why? Creating yet another vanilla mud might be boring but exactly how is it
//bad//?

>
>Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more crap
>muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies away.
>

>After reading Martin's post last night, I toured round a few muds, asking them
>a few questions that it had raised. The average reaction was a defensive one,
>unfortunately. There was even one place (a stock EW2), which, when faced with
>the question 'Do you think stock muds are damaging the mud community?', replied
>'I dont really care to be quite honest!'. Apathy is a dangerous thing,
>especially when dressed up as wilful selfishness.

Please tell me you're joking. Somebody making a crap mud is a loss to the mud
community? Come on. How many of us started playing years ago on crap muds
and still thought they were the coolest thing ever? I frequently see muds
that appear to be straight outta the box drawing a sizable amount of players.
Players eventually will outgrow their penchant for the first mud they've tried
and seek out something different...and perhaps stumble across something
better.

-peter

[FIZZIX]

In article <E66L0...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,

Craig Sivils <csi...@blkbox.com> wrote:
>>We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
>>systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
>>we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
>>who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?
>
>I do, there is enough "differences" on many muds that sometimes it's
>nice to have a little something familiar to help you while you get
>adjusted to the new environment.
>

If the mud has enough "differences" that you have problems adjusting, it
follows that either:
a) It's not stock.
b) You're a schmuck.

>You sound just as arrogant as people who declare themselves to be
>experts at roleplaying and wish to set everyone else straight.

As a general rule, stock Diku & co. are not roleplaying muds. If you are
on a stock mud and feel that you are roleplaying, you most likely are:
a) The only one
b) Wasting your time
c) Delusional

>People like different things, some people think painfulmud (tm) is so
>real that it's great, while others want cheesemud (tm) figuring that
>since mudding is escapism, they should really escape reality.
>
>Contrary to your snotty view of the world.

In no way was he snotty (tm). He was merely protesting something-he-didn't
like-(tm). If that is snotty, then you need to step down from the infamous
soapbox (tm(tm)) yourself.

>It's about fun. If they're having fun then what business is it of
>yours if it's just poor ole "stock" fun?
>
>Craig
>

Because if noone contributes anything original, nothing progresses. Adding
another railroad and letting people put 2 hotels on properties does not
do anything to the fundamental aspects of Monopoly. in other words, things
don't get changed. If nothing gets different, you can't have your
"different tastes" that you defend with such enthusiasm. Unfortunately
about %95 of the mudders are, to put it bluntly, stupid. (If you don't
believe this, then most likely you're one of the %95.) And it frustrates
the heck out of us smart ones.

-griffie

[Greg Munt]

On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:

> Matt Chatterley (ne...@itl.net) wrote:
> : Anyways, thats my little turn on this particular soapbox, you both have
> : very valid points to make (and valuable contributions), but please, let's
> : not break down to another long flamewar.
>
> I would love nothing more :) But it seems there is a group of people
> who like slamming me any time I post. I certainly will defend myself
> against such twerps.

I dont think its a 'George posted, flame-time!' mentality. I think its
annoyance at the arrogance and self-righteousness of your 'I disagree
with you, therefore you are wrong' attitude. That is most certainly how
it was with me - which is why many of the things I complained about did
not neccessarily apply to the posts I was replying to. Its an annoyance
that has built up over time, that has now turned to anger.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:
:
: > Matt Chatterley (ne...@itl.net) wrote:
: > : Anyways, thats my little turn on this particular soapbox, you both have
: > : very valid points to make (and valuable contributions), but please, let's
: > : not break down to another long flamewar.
: >
: > I would love nothing more :) But it seems there is a group of people
: > who like slamming me any time I post. I certainly will defend myself
: > against such twerps.
:
: I dont think its a 'George posted, flame-time!' mentality. I think its
: annoyance at the arrogance and self-righteousness of your 'I disagree
: with you, therefore you are wrong' attitude. That is most certainly how
: it was with me - which is why many of the things I complained about did
: not neccessarily apply to the posts I was replying to. Its an annoyance
: that has built up over time, that has now turned to anger.

Please quote any example of this. Simply put, you just felt like
flaming. You even admit you have no basis for it other than supposed
posts to other threads.

[Greg Munt]

> : Your question of how to stop ppl misusing code is a valid one. You cant,
> : obviously, stop people doing it - but you can discourage it, or provide
> : an environment where ppl are more likely to be creative.
> :
> : Things you could do are:
> :
> : * Offer awards to the most original use of your code.
>
> Award them what? Money? You have to be kidding me. I am not going
> to give people my code then pay them to use it right.

I said awards - as in a recognition of merit and achievement that all
should strive to obtain.

> : * Revoke the privilege of use of your code to those blatantly giving the
> : code (and the community) a bad name, in extreme circumstances.
>
> You can't do this without putting it the license. But you stated
> above that you don't want anything in the license. You can't have it
> both ways.
>
> And I have stated why I think the license is a bad place.

The extreme circumstances I mentioned would perhaps be refusal to make
any kind of original and unique game. Since 'good' and 'bad' are
subjective terms, perhaps we as a community could come to an agreement on
certain minimum requirements? I dont know. But I've always felt that
ideas (any ideas, no matter how silly they might sound) are far better
than blind apathy.

> Furthermore, I do not have the time to police the net to make
> subjective judgments on every single NM mud.

Thats certainly a valid point. I feel myself leaning to some sort of
'quality association' now. It sounds good in theory, but in practice
could be quite disastrous. It is certainly something that needs to be
thought on and discussed in some detail, in my view.

> : * Offer technical assistance (or set up a mailing list to provide an
> : equivalent service) for those genuinely interested in creating
> : original and unique games derived from your code.
>
> Been there, done that.

Which doesnt *neccessarily* make it wrong, or ineffective (as your tone
suggests) - any attempt to improve things is worth the effort, surely?

> : Can anyone think of anything else that might help reduce the problem?
>
> No. I do not think there is anything that I should be doing. I am
> sorry you find that egotistical. I think it is unbeliebably fucked up
> to suggest allowing people to use something useful away for free
> obliges them to give even more of themselves.

Thats certainly a valid viewpoint, George. However, its not one that I
entirely share. I dont believe that when you allow ppl to use your code,
that your involvement can stop there. Releasing your code has the
potential to affect the community, and its image (this is what this
thread is all about, after all) - so I think releasing your code is a
responsibility. How far that responsibility should be taken, I am not
sure of. But I do feel it should be taken on to a certain extent.

[George Reese]

FIZZIX (Fiz...@cris.com) wrote:
: In article <E66L0...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>,
: Craig Sivils <csi...@blkbox.com> wrote:
: >People like different things, some people think painfulmud (tm) is so

: >real that it's great, while others want cheesemud (tm) figuring that
: >since mudding is escapism, they should really escape reality.
: >
: >Contrary to your snotty view of the world.
:
: In no way was he snotty (tm). He was merely protesting something-he-didn't
: like-(tm). If that is snotty, then you need to step down from the infamous
: soapbox (tm(tm)) yourself.

He suggested that empowering people to develop their own muds is a bad
thing. I call that elitist, which is another word for snotty. What
do you call it?

[George Reese]

Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:

: In <5etb6h$4oj$1...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
:
: >Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:
: [my observation of Nightmare snipped]
:
: >Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
: >detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
: >is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
: >driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
: >hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
: >or hack it badly.
:
: Perhaps I didn't communicate my original idea clearly enough. There
: were several specifics that I didn't like about the Nightmare lib.
: Probably the worst example is the limb-based combat (I don't like it, at
: least not the way a lot of people implement it. I'm not saying it's
: bad, or that Mr. Reese is terrible for putting it there, but that I
: don't like it). Other examples are present, but I don't want to make an
: issue of them right now.

Limbs are fairly simple to remove. They are probably the single
hardest element to remove, but they are certainly doable.

: >The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative

: >area building.
:
: But, what about other aspects? I've been a Dwarven Cleric on almost
: every MUD I play. Is that original? Why not start fresh, define new
: races, but do it intelligently? Wouldn't that give the world a better
: "sense of realism" than just taking the stock races and planting them
: into the MUD? What about classes, or mixtures of classes? What about
: new skill sets?

Nightmare comes with examples classes and races. You define your
own. Hell, Nightmare does not even come with an example cleric
class. A good mudlib makes classes and races configurable.

: What about stats? Why do I have to have the basic 6 (or 7, depending on

: what version of AD&D/MUD lib you use)? Why can't I use a different set
: of stats and change the way combat works?

Nightmare imposes no stats on you. Certain other pieces of the lib
request some specific stats, but it does not limite what stats you can
have and it is trivial to modify those other systems to use whatever
stats you want.

Specifically, you can create a rich set of skills AND stats in
Nightmare that are very different from any other Nightmare mud without
changing ANY mudlib code.

: What about combat in and of itself? Why can't I change that and make it

: more original, not just "go, slay the creature, throw spells until its
: dead, loot the corpse"? Why can't I even elimintate a lot of the
: hack-n-slash if I wanted to, but keep the mechanics there because there
: will be some combat and I like the given mechanics?

You *can* modify combat to do so, but you can create a very different
world without touching it. You seem to be missing my point. You are
arguing that you can change the mudlib to make a mud more unique. I
am not at all arguing against that. I am saying that changing the
mudlib is probably the least efficient way to do so.

Furthermore, a good mudlib will encapsulate combat routines like both
Nightmare and Lima do such that you can pull out those combat routines
and put in your own without touching the rest of the lib.

: All these have little if anything to do with writing areas, but all are

: important ways to make a MUD stand out from the rest, appear more unique.

They are unimportant to making a mud stand out from the rest. And as
I pointed out, on a good lib, all except one are configurable and the
other is easily done through minimal mudlib modifications.

: [my observations of DGD snipped]
:
: >You are way too focused on what the mudlib has.

:
: But, that is what the 'lib is for, right? It is for aiding my design of
: a unique MUD. Melville under DGD doesn't offer a lot of the
: functionality I like. I would like to be able to use more to skip to
: the bottom of a big file, I would like to have a better mail/board
: editor, I would like a lot of things Melville doesn't support. All
: these things would help in the design of an interesting and original
: MUD, or would even help in "coding areas", as you seem to focus on.

A mudlib is for capturing common functionality among various mud types
as well as being modular enough to support divergent desires without
heavy coding. Melville does not fit that bill because anything you
want requires heavy coding.

: >: Perhaps if there were more middle ground, where you had the basics in

: >: place, and they were elegantly done with good documentation, then we
: >: would get more people focusing on design instead of just setting the
: >: sucker up.
:
: >Like I said, stop looking at the mudlib and look at yourself.
: >Creativity is up to you. Bare bones libs require you to do much more
: >coding. Well developed mudlibs impose nothing on you and allow you
: >instead to concentrate on area building.
:
: But, Mr. Reese, the design of the gameplay is more than mere area coding.
: If I thought area coding could make a good MUD, I would attempt to find
: a coding position on a MUD I like and code good areas. I have before, I
: am sure I could do it again. Yes, there is a large amount of the MUD's
: originality that is derived from areas and the coding of them, but let
: us not be too short-sighted and say that that is all there is.

I did not say that was all there is. I said that is where most of
your payoff is.

: I like Melville's premise, that you give the designers something simple
: to work with. But, I like a bit more functionality and a bit more
: freedom. I don't want aspects of the gameplay of the MUD (like the
: limb-based combat example given before) to be forced upon me by the
: design of the lib. I don't want non-area stock features to bog down my
: MUD, either.

Any lib will make some basic assumptions. A good lib will modularize
those assumptions so you can plug in your own.

: I truly want to bring my vision of a unique MUD into being.

:
: (I speak for all the designers of the proposed Demonscape MUD, so any
: "I, me, my" refers to all of our team and of course, to me specifically).

That's fine. But most mud builders do not have your team's coding
skills nor should they have to have your team's coding skills. In
addition, I guarantee that a creative set of non-coders can have as
much of an impact with a Nightmare or a Lima without modifying the
core lib as you can with your group of coders in a lesser time.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : Your question of how to stop ppl misusing code is a valid one. You cant,

: > : obviously, stop people doing it - but you can discourage it, or provide
: > : an environment where ppl are more likely to be creative.
: > :
: > : Things you could do are:
: > :
: > : * Offer awards to the most original use of your code.
: >
: > Award them what? Money? You have to be kidding me. I am not going
: > to give people my code then pay them to use it right.
:
: I said awards - as in a recognition of merit and achievement that all
: should strive to obtain.

You get the "Descartes thinks this is a cool mud" icon you can put on
your web page?

I can see people running en masse to get that award! :)

: > : * Revoke the privilege of use of your code to those blatantly giving the

: > : code (and the community) a bad name, in extreme circumstances.
: >
: > You can't do this without putting it the license. But you stated
: > above that you don't want anything in the license. You can't have it
: > both ways.
: >
: > And I have stated why I think the license is a bad place.
:
: The extreme circumstances I mentioned would perhaps be refusal to make
: any kind of original and unique game. Since 'good' and 'bad' are
: subjective terms, perhaps we as a community could come to an agreement on
: certain minimum requirements? I dont know. But I've always felt that
: ideas (any ideas, no matter how silly they might sound) are far better
: than blind apathy.

I control the use of my code. I would not put it up to some
goofy third party standard to determine who can and cannot use my
mudlib.

In fact, to some degree, this is silly since I have removed my
codebase from use because I think most mudders are idiots. However, I
do not recommend anyone else do it. I just have less patience to deal
with the idiots these days.

: > Furthermore, I do not have the time to police the net to make

: > subjective judgments on every single NM mud.
:
: Thats certainly a valid point. I feel myself leaning to some sort of
: 'quality association' now. It sounds good in theory, but in practice
: could be quite disastrous. It is certainly something that needs to be
: thought on and discussed in some detail, in my view.

I think the quality association is a dumb idea. I think anything done
by committee is dumb.

: > : * Offer technical assistance (or set up a mailing list to provide an

: > : equivalent service) for those genuinely interested in creating
: > : original and unique games derived from your code.
: >
: > Been there, done that.
:
: Which doesnt *neccessarily* make it wrong, or ineffective (as your tone
: suggests) - any attempt to improve things is worth the effort, surely?

It is not, however, a responsibility. It is just a good way to help
people.

: > : Can anyone think of anything else that might help reduce the problem?

: >
: > No. I do not think there is anything that I should be doing. I am
: > sorry you find that egotistical. I think it is unbeliebably fucked up
: > to suggest allowing people to use something useful away for free
: > obliges them to give even more of themselves.
:
: Thats certainly a valid viewpoint, George. However, its not one that I
: entirely share. I dont believe that when you allow ppl to use your code,
: that your involvement can stop there. Releasing your code has the
: potential to affect the community, and its image (this is what this
: thread is all about, after all) - so I think releasing your code is a
: responsibility. How far that responsibility should be taken, I am not
: sure of. But I do feel it should be taken on to a certain extent.

Flame the dorks who put up clone muds. They are the ones responsible
for the clone muds.

Why do people have the need to place blame where it is easy to place
it instead of where it belongs? Face it, you 'blame the stock code
deverloper' people only blame us simply because you cannot pick out
clone mud admins easily and hold them up for derision.

Keep in mind, none of you would be here if the people who have
released their code had not done so.

[Carlos L. Myers]

George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5evj7p$chm$1...@darla.visi.com>...

> I post my opinion, you say you agree with it, and yet you take time to
> flame me ANYWAYS? What an asshole.

Could it be that big bull's eye on your ass with the words "flame me"
writen across it? You still haven't removed it since the telnet flame war
:-)

I have yet to see your original post on the subject, but from what I can
tell from other replies, I be in agreement with you. But I'll just wait
till my newserver decides to cooperate and show your post.

Carlos Myers

[George Reese]

Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
: George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article

: <5evj7p$chm$1...@darla.visi.com>...
: > I post my opinion, you say you agree with it, and yet you take time to
: > flame me ANYWAYS? What an asshole.
:
: Could it be that big bull's eye on your ass with the words "flame me"
: writen across it? You still haven't removed it since the telnet flame war
: :-)

Then I better not eat any chili.

[Orion Henry]

>> : Can anyone think of anything else that might help reduce the problem?

It seems to me we need to employ tried and true methods of
discrimination used for centuries by groups like the KKK. We need
seporate terms for all stock muds, partially stock muds and all
original muds. Then there wont be all these problems with the original
and the not-so original muds getting mixed up.

Orion

[Lucas Kenter]

Hello everybody,

Maybe i'm not realy a guy who should write in this discussion 'cause i
suppose i'm one of the 'dorks' you are talking about...
But i do it anyway! ;-)

> Flame the dorks who put up clone muds. They are the ones responsible
> for the clone muds.

Maybe i just missing the point, but if a very original mud with a lot of
'homemade' features isn't appreciated then maybe that's just the way it
is. Maybe there are a lot of simple guys who don't mind much about
'how original' the mud is, and instead just want to hack and slash for a
exp and have a few friends on the mud to have there adventures and
that's it.

Personally i think that a good mud is a mud that fullfills the wish of
the administrator and his crew. They are the guys that are stuck with
it. Every player can go if he thinks that the mud sucks! And if
administraters don't like them leaving, then they should make a better
('customer oriented') mud.

At the moment i'm looking for a nice REAL CREATIVE ;-) mud, with a whole
new feeling, a more story based, RPG game. Maybe i want to much, but i
can always settle for less. The only problem is where to look, the
amount of mud's is so enormous. Different Quality lists (one for
innovative muds and others for ??? (fill that in yourself) ) would help
me a lot. Of course it would give a lot off discussion, but thats not
bad, you see that everywhere (yeah i think they call it politics :-) )

Well i hope i didn't say much stuppid things and created some
understanding for those 'dorks who setup a clone-mud...'

Greetings,

Lucas Kenter

[Martin Keegan]

Simon Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Martin Keegan wrote:
>
> > Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
> > quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
> > databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
> > which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
> > replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
>
> EVERY MUD must, by definition, have something in common with other MUDs,

Tell that to the "the only original MU* out there was the first TinyMUD"
crew ;)

> otherwise it is not a MUD. There are so many MUDs areound these days that
> there is bound to be some overlap between various MUDs, even if the ideas
> were conceived separately.

Sure. Let's say it's a question of degree then. LambdaMOO and TNT
are obviously different muds, whereas there are muds out there with
the same limerick for the background story, with the majority of their
databases in common too.

> > Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
> > with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
> > effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> > the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> > those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> > the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> > competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> > the real world.
>
> I take issue with the suggestion that using stock code is necessarily bad.
> Would you write your own operating system to run your MUD? From scracth,
> of course: you couldn't use any parts of BSD because it would be
> unoriginal.

I could make an interesting point about Emi here, but they never
proved anything :)

> In "the real world", we often use Rapid Application Development tools to
> get systems up and running as quickly as possible. We don't care if our
> message boxes scream "This Was Written In Visual Basic". If you can do
> the job in VB or Delphi, then you do it in VB or Delphi. This does NOT
> make the applications any less usable than an application written in C++.

Point taken.

> When coding for your own amusement, in which I include coding MUDs, it is
> UP TO YOU which approach you take. It seems logical to me, to get the MUD
> up and running using a stock code base and then start removing features
> that you don't like and adding your own features. If you want a coding
> challenge, then by all means write your MUD from scratch - but that isn't
> necessarily the way to get a "good" MUD up and running (whatever you mean
> by "good".)

Ah - ok - I'm probably falling into the trap of equating "original"
with "good", a reaction to equating "unoriginal" with "bad". I guess
you can have some pretty good unoriginal stuff, esp parodies.

> If people run unmodified stock MUDs, then that is their loss. You don't
> attract players by downloading Circle, compiling it and advertising it.

We should test this statistically.

> Furthermore the real fun is in the development side; the admin side is
> more of a pain in the backside than anything else.

> > I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
> > to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
> > they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
> > codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing
> > the amount of variety offered to the players.
>
> Don't knock them. Some are just Circle+Races+Classes+Skills. Others are
> all that and more. I notice you don't provide any examples.

Ok then. There's a mud called "Age of Dragons" listed on The Mud
Connector as being "CircleMUD 3.0 (heavily modified)". It still
has the circle limerick.

> You seem to think that having some "standard" features is necessarily bad.
> I disagree: if you were writing a new operating system, would you get rid
> of concepts such as directories? (I do know of an OS that doesn't have
> them - MCP - but it is awful to use IMO.)

Directories? Bah! I refuse to subscribe to such a blatant method of
government thought control, etc, rant, etc. Yeah, Ok.

The problem with maximising commonality is that it acts as an
impediment to innovation. If you want to change your combat system
to some new weird thing, players will hate it just because it's
different and go somewhere more familiar.

Again, a question of degree.

> What you fear is already upon is in the form of Dave Austin. However most
> MUDs are free, run by private individuals and based on stock code bases.
> I see no evidence of a drift away from that.

If mudding became more popular there'd be enough players to sustain
more than one Avalon ...

> Am I not correct in stating that the only MUD that you have ever
> started was indeed based on a stock code base: Mordor?

Mordor? I don't think so! :) I'm writing a mud from scratch ATM,
failing to keep deadlines on helping write another one from scratch,
and have had a stab at writing one in VB (spare me the flames please, it
was all that was available :), and looked worryingly like Shades. It
was also crap). You're probably thinking of Sundevil, which was an
LP, using a Lima mudlib.

> Simon.

Mk
--
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
@z=("\'NsImeRoM","TeBm","!rE");
@s=reverse split'','012';
@l[shift@s]=scalar reverse$z[scalar@s-1]while(@s);
map{print ucfirst lc$_."\040"}split"m",join't',@l; print "\n";

[da...@xs4all.nl]

In <nU89pDAW...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> Matthew Griffin <oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> writes:

>Coding this thing would be a whole new ball game but while some people
>protest their hate for OLC it could work... it would also be unique - a
>MUD that anyone can modify... of course copyright wise only the mud OLC
>engine would be copyrighted. That would revolutionise the whole MUD
>making process.

This revolution has already taken place. It's called LPmud.
I'd tell you where to find more information, if I knew a good source.
Actually playing an LP is probably the best way to find out.
And then, of course, code for one.

Even on LP's, only the "immortals" can modify the mud. Players
can't. (Well, unless you want to sacrifice their suspension of
disbelief. Mucking around with LPC code tends to shatter the
illusion real fast.)
Solving that problem would be the next revolution :)

--
Richard Braakman

[Ron Cole]

So far, the award for best original post concerning a stock
MUD is a toss up between Orion Henry and his "Methods of the Nazi"
post and Adam Wiggins for his Twink Patrol (tm). Votes will be
tallied.. sometime...

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

This is really a digression from the main point.

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

> I take it as a basis of morality that people are responsible for
> their own actions, not other people's actions.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Example #1:

You are an agitator, and manage to form a mob to stand up against
the evil (from your point of view) rulers of your city. You want
them to make sure their voices are heard, to change the minds of
the rulers. However, the mob doesn't do what you want them to, and
the mob runs off and slays the rulers.

Example #2:

A person is loading clips for his machine gun righ in front of a
children's park, and inserts the clip with clear intention to fire
at the children. You have a loaded sidearm, know how to shoot, but
you let the person kill all the children.

Example #2 is typically raised as a question to those who want to
enter social service instead of military service in Norway, with "what
do you do" instead of my last sentence.

I'm not going to claim that there is a similarity between this and
offering a "stock mudlib", but I think it might serve as a thing to
consider with your sentence about morality.

J<>I
--
"What do you do for a living?" "I'm a spoon bender."
James Randi, imitating an imagined conversation
between Uri Geller and his father-in-law to be.

[Brian James Green]

[comments on various merits of libs snipped]

First, I would like to thank Mr. Reese for a rather intelligent and
rational reply to my post. It seems there are never enough of these on
Usenet. Plus, I want to show him that at least one person isn't always
looking to flame him. ;)

In my observations, it seems that I want to re-write a significant
amount of the lib. What is the point in having an all-features present
lib if I want to take it all out and put in my own version?

But, let us get to the meat of the matter. I believe what Mr. Reese
describes as "area coding" is probably what I refer to as "world
design". On the other thread I have attemped to start, I describe the
process that we have gone through to create a coherent world. I really
find this lacking in other MUDs, where one finds things that "don't
fit", even if the theme is supposedly very strict.

I think that we need to expand on area coding and thinking about a
broader idea. There are enough smurf-halfling-elf-wombat villages out
there, all neighbors and all working together. What about a coherent
world where I travel from one village to the next, and don't have
another "smurf village" that I've seen (perhaps in a different form) on
other MUDs.

Although I personally hate the "realism" argument, but there should be a
"sense of reality". If one area has one convention, then why can't
another area use the same convention? I think the biggest example is
armour/weapons one finds. Allow me to use the old LP convention of
weapon class (WC). If one finds a WC 20 dagger, what is the point of
limiting the mages to only using daggers? If the best sword I can find
is only WC15, then what is the benefit of using a sword? If one steel
long sword in one area is WC 12, then why is another steel long sword,
described to be in the exact same condition but in another area WC 5?

I would encourage other people to explore the issues I've presented here
a bit deeper. And, if anyone has taken the time to coherently design
their game world, please followup to my other thread.

Thanks for your time, comments welcomed, flames ignored.

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <8568229...@dejanews.com>, ne...@itl.net writes:
> In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>,

> Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unoriginal derivative muds are stifling creativity and giving
>> quality muds a bad name. Having multiple muds with identical features,
>> databases and command sets discourages players from trying muds
>> which are "different". It would appear that "originality" has been
>> replaced by "variety" - banal copies of the same ideas.
>

> Hear hear! This is all too true. I've logged into many muds, and been
> discouraged from ever visiting similar games again by what I've seen
> (this is where my personal dislike of circle comes from, for instance -
> I'm now reluctant to try any circle mud, since all those I have tried to
> date have been very samey).

I've generally had the same complaint against Diku-derivatives in general.
Admins are forced to build the home village themselves (Midgaard or something
of the sort is already there) and area builders have limited control over what
they build. This has been much less of a problem with script-based systems like
LP.

>
>> Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
>> with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
>> effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
>> the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
>> those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
>> the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
>> competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
>> the real world.
>

> Absolutely. Easy to get and setup code bases actually mean that anyone
> who thinks running a mud would be 'cool' (for whatever reasons, lets not
> divluge into those here, at least, not at this point), can have a bash at
> it, if they can find or provide a site to put it on the net with. Perhaps
> it does help those of us who can at least have a shot at creating
> something worthwhile, but, I fear such people are in a vast minority.

>
>> I log on to so-called "heavily modified" muds (some have even taken
>> to terming themselves "extremely-modified" (!)) only to find that
>> they are the same as most of the others derived from the same
>> codebase. Their most highly prized innovations seem to be increasing

>> the amount of variety offered to the players. If I wanted *lots* of
>> races, I'd have 65536 of them, each characterised by a different
>> mix of sixteen attribute flags. Wouldn't *that* be easy to code?
>> Probably easy to get bored by, too.
>
> Heh. It's a typical mentality - more races, more classes, however, as you
> said, I believe: More is not better!
>
>> If mudding suddenly increases in popularity, expect to see some
>> self-proclaimed "Quality Mud Guild" spring up. This isn't what we
>> need nor want. Muds could evolve into a major pastime. If they do,
>> expect organisations like Microsoft to be running them. Are we in
>> any state to compete with such forces at the moment?
>
> As is, few of us are in such a state. I'll say that there are a few
> excellent games out there run for free that could possibly compete in
> terms of quality, however, not in terms of volume, or resources, of
> course. Should, god forbid, a company like MS break into the market,
> things would look very grim indeed.

>
>> We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
>> systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
>> we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
>> who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?
>

> What we want, what we need, are innovative ideas, well implemented to
> create truly new, different and exciting games - new themes, new
> implementations, originality. If all artists painted shades of the same
> landscape, art would be very dull to study, and partake in indeed, let us
> not allow mudding to fall into this dreary picture.

Too late. What MUDs need, I think, (one thing, anyway) are quality-control
people. Wizzes whose responsibility it is to say "no, this isn't worth including"
and "how does this fit in with the rest of the MUD?"

>
>> Quality not Quantity;
>> More Isn't Better.
>>
>> Mk
>>
>> --
>> #!/usr/local/bin/perl
>> @z=("OnpSipErOm","TeBp","rE");@s=reverse split'','012';

>> @l[shift@s]=scalar reverse$z[scalar@s-1]while(@s);

>> map{print ucfirst lc$_."\040"}split"p",join't',@l; print "\n";
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[ne...@ogham.demon.co.uk]

Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> [H. McDaniel]
>>
>> I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
>> keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
>> and usage of MUDs which add nothing.
>
>Here, here! Washing your hands of your code after its release is nothing short
>of utter irresponsibility. There is a precedent for this - Simon Marsh has

And why's that then? If you produce some code for free and then give it to
other people for free why should you be oblidged to support it? If the people
who use it don't like that fact then they can type "rm *" and fuck off to
some other system. I get mails occasionally from people about code I wrote
(I wrote the NUTS talker system among other things) mentioning bugs in it ,
fine I expect that sort of mail , unfortunately some of them then continue
with the "WHY DON'T YOU FIX IT???!!!" type of hysterical comments , as if I
have nothing better to do with my time than serve their pissy little requests.

I think George summed it up a while back when he said that some people seem
to think they're doing *us* (as in us programmers) a favour by running our
code (rather than us having done *them* a favour by spending months writing
the bloody thing in the first place) and then seem to expect some sort of
payment in return.

>revoked permission for use of his code to a number of EW2-based talkers (or so
>I am led to believe)

You don't take out licenses to run free software (generally) therefor theres
nothing to revoke and you can't simply tell people to stop using your code
when you feel like it if you didn't make it clear beforehand that you reserved
that right *in writing* in the distribution. If he hasn't done this then he
can revoke till the cows come home but they can just give him the finger (the
people running the talker , not the cows :) and theres sod all he can do about
it.

NJR

[George Reese]

You are discussing the wrong issue here. The real question is what is
our action in these examples taken in a moral context? Examining
each...

Jan Ingvoldstad (ja...@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: This is really a digression from the main point.

:
:
: [Michael Elizabeth Chastain]
:
: > I take it as a basis of morality that people are responsible for
: > their own actions, not other people's actions.
:
: What exactly do you mean by this?
:
:
: Example #1:
:
: You are an agitator, and manage to form a mob to stand up against
: the evil (from your point of view) rulers of your city. You want
: them to make sure their voices are heard, to change the minds of
: the rulers. However, the mob doesn't do what you want them to, and
: the mob runs off and slays the rulers.

I do not understand what you are trying to get at with this example,
so I will leave this one for elaboration.

: Example #2:

:
: A person is loading clips for his machine gun righ in front of a
: children's park, and inserts the clip with clear intention to fire
: at the children. You have a loaded sidearm, know how to shoot, but
: you let the person kill all the children.

The key to the moral weight of an action is the intentions of the
agent. We can examine this directly in terms of beliefs and desires.
In this case, I believe the person is going to kill children and I
believe I have the power to prevent it. Some desire will cause me to
act on those beliefs. We, of course, are missing the desire that
causes me not to act (I am guessing the desire not to get involved).

Under these circumstances, my inaction is morally blameworthy since
the consequences of my inaction are well known to me and there were no
other overriding moral issues.

: Example #2 is typically raised as a question to those who want to

: enter social service instead of military service in Norway, with "what
: do you do" instead of my last sentence.
:
: I'm not going to claim that there is a similarity between this and
: offering a "stock mudlib", but I think it might serve as a thing to
: consider with your sentence about morality.

They have absolutely nothing to do with stock mudlibs, and thus do not
have a place in this discussion; they are, however, interesting topics.

[Jan Ingvoldstad]

[George Reese]

> I do not understand what you are trying to get at with this example,
> so I will leave this one for elaboration.

I was trying to get at the point that just because person A isn't the
one performing the deed, it doesn't mean s/he/it hasn't got any
responsibility when s/he/it lets (or provokes, orders, whatever) other
people into doing the deed.

When a person has started something, that person is primarily just
responsible for starting it, but s/he/it can't be considered
completely free of responsibility for the _consequences_ either. That
is, the person has to face the consequences of what s/he/it made
happen, even if it was just the function of igniting the mob.

> They have absolutely nothing to do with stock mudlibs, and thus do not
> have a place in this discussion; they are, however, interesting topics.

Its relevance wasn't directly to stock mudlibs, no, that's why I
changed the subject. But it _is_ relevant to the previous post, and I
believe it needed to be written. :)

[George Reese]

Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:

: [comments on various merits of libs snipped]

:
: First, I would like to thank Mr. Reese for a rather intelligent and
: rational reply to my post. It seems there are never enough of these on
: Usenet. Plus, I want to show him that at least one person isn't always
: looking to flame him. ;)
:
: In my observations, it seems that I want to re-write a significant
: amount of the lib. What is the point in having an all-features present
: lib if I want to take it all out and put in my own version?

Take it all out? None. But it is rarely sane or desireable to 'take
it all out'. Why? Because a large amount of functionality is common
among muds without respect to individuating issues. For example, all
muds need a user connection, a manner of spatially relating things in
the world, a way to process user input, etc. While you can do these
things in many different ways, it is not something most coders are
likely to do better than those who have released stock code, it is not
something they are likely to get a lot of benefit from by doing it
differently, and it takes time.

As far as other things, why not include things that people can easily
remove? Take, for example, the Nightmare class system. Some people
do not want classes on their mud. Some people do. I have included a
rich class system in Nightmare that can easily be ignored *without
writing any code*.

For other things, such as combat, the combat routines are encapsulted
inside combat-specific objects. You can change the combat system just
by plugging in your versions of those modules. If you have tha
aptitude to write your own combat from scratch, you certainly have the
aptitude to do this. The difference is that you do not have to write
a class system from scratch or a race system or any of the other
things NM provided.

: But, let us get to the meat of the matter. I believe what Mr. Reese

: describes as "area coding" is probably what I refer to as "world
: design". On the other thread I have attemped to start, I describe the
: process that we have gone through to create a coherent world. I really
: find this lacking in other MUDs, where one finds things that "don't
: fit", even if the theme is supposedly very strict.
:
: I think that we need to expand on area coding and thinking about a
: broader idea. There are enough smurf-halfling-elf-wombat villages out
: there, all neighbors and all working together. What about a coherent
: world where I travel from one village to the next, and don't have
: another "smurf village" that I've seen (perhaps in a different form) on
: other MUDs.
:
: Although I personally hate the "realism" argument, but there should be a
: "sense of reality". If one area has one convention, then why can't
: another area use the same convention? I think the biggest example is
: armour/weapons one finds. Allow me to use the old LP convention of
: weapon class (WC). If one finds a WC 20 dagger, what is the point of
: limiting the mages to only using daggers? If the best sword I can find
: is only WC15, then what is the benefit of using a sword? If one steel
: long sword in one area is WC 12, then why is another steel long sword,
: described to be in the exact same condition but in another area WC 5?
:
: I would encourage other people to explore the issues I've presented here
: a bit deeper. And, if anyone has taken the time to coherently design
: their game world, please followup to my other thread.
:
: Thanks for your time, comments welcomed, flames ignored.

I do not like the term realism. I prefer 'internal consistency'. In
other words, the mud should maintain an air of internal consistency
such that if something happens in one part of the mud, all things
being equal, it should happen in another part.

[George Reese]

Jan Ingvoldstad (ja...@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: [George Reese]

:
: > I do not understand what you are trying to get at with this example,
: > so I will leave this one for elaboration.
:
: I was trying to get at the point that just because person A isn't the
: one performing the deed, it doesn't mean s/he/it hasn't got any
: responsibility when s/he/it lets (or provokes, orders, whatever) other
: people into doing the deed.
:
: When a person has started something, that person is primarily just
: responsible for starting it, but s/he/it can't be considered
: completely free of responsibility for the _consequences_ either. That
: is, the person has to face the consequences of what s/he/it made
: happen, even if it was just the function of igniting the mob.

It all depends on what the consequences are and on what can reasonably
be expected of that person to do.

With respect to the mob, the person has done more than can reasonably
be expected; that person risked their life.

With respect to mudlib development, it is not even a moral issue. The
proliferation of bad muds is not a moral question.

[Daniel Koepke]

On 26 Feb 1997, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

> A person is loading clips for his machine gun righ in front of a
> children's park, and inserts the clip with clear intention to fire
> at the children. You have a loaded sidearm, know how to shoot, but
> you let the person kill all the children.
>

> Example #2 is typically raised as a question to those who want to
> enter social service instead of military service in Norway, with "what
> do you do" instead of my last sentence.

So what do *they* do if you say you'd shoot him in the leg then go
administer medical aid to him? Personally, though, I'd unload on him.

--
Daniel Koepke
dko...@california.com
Forgive me father, for I am sin.

[Tim]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970225...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>,
Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

>Here, here! Washing your hands of your code after its release is nothing short
>of utter irresponsibility. There is a precedent for this - Simon Marsh has

>revoked permission for use of his code to a number of EW2-based talkers (or so
>I am led to believe)

This has also been true of various LP areas throught their history,
but the biggest thing that takes care of some of this is just
plain old mud atrophy. Doesn't really matter wether they're "muds"
or "talkers" per se, the bottom line is most of the stuff that gets
put up reguardless of quality is short lived.

>My only concern is the subjective nature of the word 'good'. Also, if this
>'association' were to exist, there would be a danger of what the association
>deemed 'good' and of 'quality' to damage the mud community as much as the use
>of StockMUD is currently doing. The guidelines would have to be thought about
>very carefully indeed. But even so, I am sure the restrictions they brought
>would be unwelcome to some - and not neccessarily solely to the non-creative
>wannabes.

God save me from "guilds", "unions", "associations", and all the rest of the
mob-doing-favors types of setups that imply membership rules of one sort
or another. Do-gooders of that sort tend to want to make me heave.
If someone wants to form an organization to give a rating or whatever
based on it's own standards, fine, do what you want. But I'll never be
supportive of some membership oriented crap.

Tim

--
________________________________________________________________
t...@vampire.science.gmu.edu (NeXTmail, MIME) Tim Scanlon
t...@epic.org (PGP key aval.) crypto is good
Play Mystic: adsl-122.cais.com 3000

[Adrian Mouat]

In message <5f04k2$t8n$3...@darla.visi.com>
bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:

> thing. I call that elitist, which is another word for snotty. What

snotty? As in snot? or snooty?
I don't think there is anything wrong with being elitist but a lot
wrong with being whatever you meant (if I interpreted it right). They
are certainly not words for each other.
Please explain, what's wrong with elitist?

--
Adrian Mouat

"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x;
y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."

Albert Einstein

[Nathan F. Yospe]

In article
<Pine.LNX.3.91.970226...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>, Greg Munt
<gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

:On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:
:> I would love nothing more :) But it seems there is a group of people

:> who like slamming me any time I post. I certainly will defend myself
:> against such twerps.

:I dont think its a 'George posted, flame-time!' mentality. I think its
:annoyance at the arrogance and self-righteousness of your 'I disagree
:with you, therefore you are wrong' attitude. That is most certainly how
:it was with me - which is why many of the things I complained about did
:not neccessarily apply to the posts I was replying to. Its an annoyance
:that has built up over time, that has now turned to anger.

You know, this is getting interesting. I don't care for George. I find
him, in his mannerisms, often as arrogant and self-righteous as Russ
Taylor. But the longer this thread goes on, the more I find myself on
his side... there is no reason that George should be responsible for
the stock MUDs based on NM. And I will say this for him... unlike RT and
a number of the people who criticize him, George has earned a grudging
respect from me for one simple reason.. he actually has talent. I am not
a fan of LP, and I don't think George is as right as often as he thinks,
nor that he has any right to, as dogbert puts it, wave his hand and say
"bah" to everyone who criticizes him... but he should be able to defend
himself against the sort of slander this thread has kicked up.

OK, I've had my rant, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
--
Nathan F. Yospe | There is nothing wrong with being a sociopath. Its
yo...@hawaii.edu | getting caught thats a problem. Be a mad scientist
UH Manoa Physics | Write poetry. Be an artist. Plot world domination.
Biomedical Phys. | Panthers make great pets. Muhahahahahahahahahaha!!

[Jon A. Lambert]

ne...@itl.net wrote in article <8568229...@dejanews.com>...

> In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>,
> Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com> wrote:
> >

<tiny snip>

> > Having multiple muds with identical features, databases and command
> > sets discourages players from trying muds which are "different".
>

> Hear hear! This is all too true. I've logged into many muds, and been
> discouraged from ever visiting similar games again by what I've seen

<tiny snip>

Sounds like you positively disagree.

>
> > Much of the responsibility for the clone muds out there must lie
> > with freely available codebases. The idea is that if the amount of
> > effort required to start up a mud is sufficiently reduced, then
> > the people who are best at creating interesting muds (not necessarily
> > those who would be best at coding them) will create good muds, and
> > the wannabes who try to do likewise will eventually founder due to
> > competition. Unfortunately, this is not what actually happens in
> > the real world.
>
> Absolutely. Easy to get and setup code bases actually mean that anyone
> who thinks running a mud would be 'cool' (for whatever reasons, lets not
> divluge into those here, at least, not at this point), can have a bash at
> it, if they can find or provide a site to put it on the net with. Perhaps
> it does help those of us who can at least have a shot at creating
> something worthwhile, but, I fear such people are in a vast minority.
>

Sound like another strong disagreement brewing here...
You apparently think these muds provide a good starting point, MK
states this doesn't happen in the real world.

[Abigail]

On 26 Feb 1997 14:18:03 GMT, da...@xs4all.nl wrote in rec.games.mud.admin,alt.mud,rec.games.mud.misc:
++ In <nU89pDAW...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> Matthew Griffin
++ <oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> writes:
++
++ >Coding this thing would be a whole new ball game but while some people
++ >protest their hate for OLC it could work... it would also be unique - a
++ >MUD that anyone can modify... of course copyright wise only the mud OLC
++ >engine would be copyrighted. That would revolutionise the whole MUD
++ >making process.
++
++ This revolution has already taken place. It's called LPmud.
++ I'd tell you where to find more information, if I knew a good source.
++ Actually playing an LP is probably the best way to find out.
++ And then, of course, code for one.
++
++ Even on LP's, only the "immortals" can modify the mud. Players
++ can't. (Well, unless you want to sacrifice their suspension of
++ disbelief. Mucking around with LPC code tends to shatter the
++ illusion real fast.)
++ Solving that problem would be the next revolution :)

Isn't that called a MOO?

Abigail

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970225...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>, Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> [H. McDaniel]
>>
>> I believe, the MUD community leaders (all of us who are administrators or
>> keepers of related archives) should do more to discourage both the creation
>> and usage of MUDs which add nothing.
>

> Here, here! Washing your hands of your code after its release is nothing short
> of utter irresponsibility. There is a precedent for this - Simon Marsh has
> revoked permission for use of his code to a number of EW2-based talkers (or so
> I am led to believe)
>

This, actually, is why EmlenMUD is (to my knowledge) only available as a binary,
provided personally by the author.

>> I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
>> members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
>> in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
>> to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.

>
> My only concern is the subjective nature of the word 'good'. Also, if this
> 'association' were to exist, there would be a danger of what the association
> deemed 'good' and of 'quality' to damage the mud community as much as the use
> of StockMUD is currently doing. The guidelines would have to be thought about
> very carefully indeed. But even so, I am sure the restrictions they brought
> would be unwelcome to some - and not neccessarily solely to the non-creative
> wannabes.
>

Well, I don't see THAT much potential for damage, if the organization simply rates
MUDs for quality, and provides lists of good/interesting MUDs.

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <nU89pDAW...@oceanic.demon.co.uk>, Matthew Griffin <oce...@oceanic.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Since you can have MUDs that contain OLC which allow you to build areas
> easier then why can't you create a MUD that has OLC - only for commands
> and new modifications. True there would be no easy way to create a guild
> using this OLC method if it were to have true flexibility but a MUD that
> was designed to be soley OLC from the start so that even non programmers
> could 'sorta' modify the code and areas then this would eliminate many
> of the stock MUDs and the stock muds left would be because the imps
> couldn't be bothered.

>
> Coding this thing would be a whole new ball game but while some people

> protest their hate for OLC it could work... it would also be unique - a

> MUD that anyone can modify... of course copyright wise only the mud OLC

> engine would be copyrighted. That would revolutionise the whole MUD

> making process.
>
> Matt

Um, so what you're saying, is someone should write LPmud?

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <5ev6rq$vt$2...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
> Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : : [Martin Keegan]
> : :
> : : Quality not Quantity;
> : : More Isn't Better.
> :
> : > [Nathan S. Yospe]
> : >
> : > Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
> : > cannot elliminate the existing stock material...
> :
> : You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
> : stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.
>
> You cannot make such a distinction. If I were to place in my license
> 'you must use the lib creatively' then every admin would live in
> constant fear of me deeming their mud uncreative. Or worse, that I
> would simply get pissed off at them.
>
> Subjective issues have no place in a licensing agreement.
>

Good thing he wasn't talking about license agreements, then.

> : > so how can we increase the non stock competition?
> :
> : The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
> : with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
> : muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
> : and PirateMUD?
>
> There are a ton of 'from scratch' muds. Nightmare would be one of
> them. Do you mean driver too? Well, besides the question 'What is
> the point', you would have Genesis. The fact that others used its
> code is not relevant to the fact that it is from scratch.
>

I wouldn't exactly say "a ton." Several, but not a ton.

> Next, at what point do you define 'from scratch'? If it is the
> server, then comparing a 'from scratch' Java mud to a 'from scratch'
> LPMud is unfair. You are imposing that the LPMud must write its own
> interpreter while the JavaMud does not.
>
> : > there is no way to determine if a MUD is stock or not when logging on.
> :
> : You are missing the point I think. If we couldnt tell if these muds (lower
> : case, purlease;) were stock, there would be no need for this thread.
> :
> : > the obvious problem is that someone will archive
> : > areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
> : > more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?
> :
> : You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
> : egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
> : regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.
>
> Just who are those 'egotists'?
>
> It seems to me donating your labour to allow people to start muds they
> would not otherwise be able to start is an act of generousity, not
> ego.
>

That depends on the specific individuals motivation, now doesn't it? Relax and
keep in mind that your name was not mentioned above.

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <E66Is...@nonexistent.com>, abi...@ny.fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
> On 25 Feb 1997 00:19:29 GMT, George Reese wrote in rec.games.mud.admin,alt.mud,rec.games.mud.misc:
> ++ Brian James Green (pch...@iastate.edu) wrote:
> ++ : When it was available, Nightmare was one choice. However, it had almost
> ++ : too much detail in it, and could force some issues that designers want
> ++ : to decide for themselves. (in a similar fashion, Diku et al MUDs seem
> ++ : to be very complete, but not very friendly to re-do the basic ways
> ++ : things are done).
> ++
> ++ Uh, sorry, wrong. Nightmare does not really commit you to any
> ++ detail. It is up to you entirely to provide that detail. The problem
> ++ is that everyone thinks that making a mud unique involves hack the
> ++ driver or mudlib. They then find that hacking drivers and mudlibs are
> ++ hard and thus either claim that making something unique cannot be done
> ++ or hack it badly.
> ++
> ++ The fact is, the best way to make a mud unique is through creative
> ++ area building.
>
> I have to agree with Descartes on this one. It's the areas that make
> muds unique, not the core lib or the driver. One of my wishes is
> to write a core mudlib that allows you to make many different kinds
> of muds, without needing to change the core itself.
>
>
>
> Abigail
>

I would largely agree, but I would point out that changes to game mechanics can
also go a long way towards making a mud more interesting.

[uglm...@cc.memphis.edu]

In article <E66L0...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>, csi...@blkbox.com (Craig Sivils) writes:
>>We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"
>>systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
>>we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
>>who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?
>

> I do, there is enough "differences" on many muds that sometimes it's
> nice to have a little something familiar to help you while you get
> adjusted to the new environment.
>
> You sound just as arrogant as people who declare themselves to be
> experts at roleplaying and wish to set everyone else straight.
>
> People like different things, some people think painfulmud (tm) is so
> real that it's great, while others want cheesemud (tm) figuring that
> since mudding is escapism, they should really escape reality.
>
> Contrary to your snotty view of the world.
>
> It's about fun. If they're having fun then what business is it of
> yours if it's just poor ole "stock" fun?
>
> Craig
>

Someone, somewhere likes it, so no one, anywhere should ever be allowed to
criticize it? And you consider this LESS arrogant?

[Mats Henrik Carlberg]

uglm...@cc.memphis.edu writes:

> ...

>
> Too late. What MUDs need, I think, (one thing, anyway) are quality-control
> people. Wizzes whose responsibility it is to say "no, this isn't worth
> including"
> and "how does this fit in with the rest of the MUD?"
>

I think that we could have a long and flaming discussion on what quality is,
without ever reaching any agreement. Some people would even claim that
quantity is a quality in itself.

--
Mats H. Carlberg Phone: +46-13-281266, Fax: +46-13-132285
IFM, Linköping University Email: m...@ifm.liu.se
S - 581 83 Linköping, Sweden WWW: http://www.ifm.liu.se/~macar

[da...@xs4all.nl]

In <E68xD...@nonexistent.com> abi...@ny.fnx.com (Abigail) writes:
>++ Even on LP's, only the "immortals" can modify the mud. Players
>++ can't. (Well, unless you want to sacrifice their suspension of
>++ disbelief. Mucking around with LPC code tends to shatter the
>++ illusion real fast.)
>++ Solving that problem would be the next revolution :)

>Isn't that called a MOO?

I don't know. Is mucking around with MOO code better than
mucking around with LPC code? ;-)

--
Richard Braakman

[George Reese]

uglm...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:

: In article <5ev6rq$vt$2...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: > Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : : [Martin Keegan]
: > : :
: > : : Quality not Quantity;
: > : : More Isn't Better.
: > :
: > : > [Nathan S. Yospe]
: > : >
: > : > Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
: > : > cannot elliminate the existing stock material...
: > :
: > : You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
: > : stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.
: >
: > You cannot make such a distinction. If I were to place in my license
: > 'you must use the lib creatively' then every admin would live in
: > constant fear of me deeming their mud uncreative. Or worse, that I
: > would simply get pissed off at them.
: >
: > Subjective issues have no place in a licensing agreement.
: >
:
: Good thing he wasn't talking about license agreements, then.

That's the only place you can stick usage restrictions.

: > : > so how can we increase the non stock competition?

: > :
: > : The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
: > : with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
: > : muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
: > : and PirateMUD?
: >
: > There are a ton of 'from scratch' muds. Nightmare would be one of
: > them. Do you mean driver too? Well, besides the question 'What is
: > the point', you would have Genesis. The fact that others used its
: > code is not relevant to the fact that it is from scratch.
: >
:
: I wouldn't exactly say "a ton." Several, but not a ton.

Uh, ok. Whatever.

: > Next, at what point do you define 'from scratch'? If it is the

: > server, then comparing a 'from scratch' Java mud to a 'from scratch'
: > LPMud is unfair. You are imposing that the LPMud must write its own
: > interpreter while the JavaMud does not.
: >
: > : > there is no way to determine if a MUD is stock or not when logging on.
: > :
: > : You are missing the point I think. If we couldnt tell if these muds (lower
: > : case, purlease;) were stock, there would be no need for this thread.
: > :
: > : > the obvious problem is that someone will archive
: > : > areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
: > : > more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?
: > :
: > : You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
: > : egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
: > : regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.
: >
: > Just who are those 'egotists'?
: >
: > It seems to me donating your labour to allow people to start muds they
: > would not otherwise be able to start is an act of generousity, not
: > ego.
: >
:
: That depends on the specific individuals motivation, now doesn't it? Relax and
: keep in mind that your name was not mentioned above.

Did I say he did? I simply used myself as an example since I can
speak best towards my motives. It looks like you are the one reading
my name into it.

[Katrina McClelan]

In <yospe-24029...@usrns59.dialup.hawaii.edu> yo...@hawaii.edu (Nathan F. Yospe) writes:

>In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com>
>wrote:

>Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
>cannot elliminate the existing stock material... so how can we increase
>the non stock competition? There have been an increasing number of non
>stock muds, both with original codebases and areas, announced as of late,
>but I have only seen a handful actually gaining attention. The mud
>connector and its peers have been listing mildly modified ROMs and the
>like as "original" codebases, and there is no way to determine if a MUD
>is stock or not when logging on. I'm doing everything I can to discourage
>stock MUDs based on Physmud++ before I release it... some assembly
>required, etc... but the obvious problem is that someone will archive

>areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
>more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?

Well, the two options are to 1) not release it, or two cripple the
distribution of it so that it needs assembly. You mentioned this
yourself. Definately I'd advice that if you do release code, you only
include an area that is written to be a sample, not a playable area (ie
instructional on how to admin descs). Yes, some one will archive areas,
but they won't be YOUR areas, and it'll take them longer, and it'll
discourage the "gee I'm special I compiled a mud" users. I personally
don't plan on releasing my code. I spent too long writting it to let it
become stockish. I imagine however that if you release code that requires
"work" to actually start, that you'll weed out the people that aren't
willing to work on major changes out. The people that were willing to put
the effort in to making a mud unique will go to the trouble of getting the
mud to running form, and those that aren't going to put any effort in will
never get it totally running. Distruibuted code itself is not nessecarily
bad, but I tend to think that there is a problem with "Mud-in-the-box"
releases.

[Off topic, but close...]

Incidently, if anyone is interested in helping us get areas together for a
"real" original mud (as in I scrapped everything, wrote all of the code
from scratch, and now need lots of areas because I can't really convert
them [at least not easily] if I wanted to), contact me or Geofram
(bebl...@kinger.com) and we'll get you going that way.

-Katrina

[Chris Turner]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:

[Snip]

: Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more
: crap muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies
: away.

: After reading Martin's post last night, I toured round a few muds, asking
: them a few questions that it had raised. The average reaction was a
: defensive one, unfortunately. There was even one place (a stock EW2),
: which, when faced with the question 'Do you think stock muds are damaging
: the mud community?', replied 'I dont really care to be quite honest!'.
: Apathy is a dangerous thing, especially when dressed up as wilful
: selfishness.

Well there is one possible reason for getting that answer that probably
hasn't crossed your mind. Many people see talkers (ie EW2s) as something
completely different to muds - so if you ask them if stock code is killing
muds, they're unlikely to care much since they don't think it affects them.

Of course the stock EW2 code is so dire and full of bugs that there doesn't
really exist any "stock" EW2s. If the admin don't fix the majority of bugs
that come with it, it crashes everytime someone breaths. *P)

Chris
--
ch...@cimio.co.uk #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.cimio.co.uk/~chris

"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")

[George Reese]

Adrian Mouat (adrian...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
: In message <5f04k2$t8n$3...@darla.visi.com>

: bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
:
:
: > thing. I call that elitist, which is another word for snotty. What
:
: snotty? As in snot? or snooty?
: I don't think there is anything wrong with being elitist but a lot
: wrong with being whatever you meant (if I interpreted it right). They
: are certainly not words for each other.
: Please explain, what's wrong with elitist?

The attitude that your or a group to which you belong is a priori
better than anyone else?

I suppose if you do not know what is wrong with that, then there is
nothing anyone can do to help you.

[FIZZIX]

In article <199702262...@zetnet.co.uk>,

Adrian Mouat <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <5f04k2$t8n$3...@darla.visi.com>
> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>
>> thing. I call that elitist, which is another word for snotty. What
>
>snotty? As in snot? or snooty?
>I don't think there is anything wrong with being elitist but a lot
>wrong with being whatever you meant (if I interpreted it right). They
>are certainly not words for each other.
>Please explain, what's wrong with elitist?
>

>--
>Adrian Mouat
>

*nod*
An example of an elitist:
"I hate you go away you suck"
An example of a reformist:
"You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"

Pick your words more carefully, Reese.

-griffie

[FIZZIX]

In article <5f4okj$m...@chronicle.concentric.net>,

hmm, sorry about that. I was in a bad (snooty?) mood.

-griffie

[Simon Miller]

On Tue, 25 Feb 1997, Greg Munt wrote:

> > [Simon Miller]
>
> > If people run unmodified stock MUDs, then that is their loss.

>
> Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more crap
> muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies away.

Do they? I'm not so sure. Surely having a lot of rubbish around makes
the quality products look good by comparison?

[George Reese]

FIZZIX (Fiz...@cris.com) wrote:
: In article <199702262...@zetnet.co.uk>,
: Adrian Mouat <adrian...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
: >In message <5f04k2$t8n$3...@darla.visi.com>
: > bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >
: >> thing. I call that elitist, which is another word for snotty. What
: >
: >snotty? As in snot? or snooty?
: >I don't think there is anything wrong with being elitist but a lot
: >wrong with being whatever you meant (if I interpreted it right). They
: >are certainly not words for each other.
: >Please explain, what's wrong with elitist?
: >
: >--
: >Adrian Mouat
: >
:
: *nod*
: An example of an elitist:
: "I hate you go away you suck"
: An example of a reformist:
: "You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"
:
: Pick your words more carefully, Reese.

Exactly what are you referring to?

[Tao Nelson]

Nathan F. Yospe (yo...@hawaii.edu) wrote:
: In article <33117F...@cam.sri.com>, Martin Keegan <mar...@cam.sri.com>

: wrote:
:
: Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
: cannot elliminate the existing stock material... so how can we increase
: the non stock competition? There have been an increasing number of non
: stock muds, both with original codebases and areas, announced as of late,
: but I have only seen a handful actually gaining attention. The mud
: connector and its peers have been listing mildly modified ROMs and the
: like as "original" codebases, and there is no way to determine if a MUD
: is stock or not when logging on. I'm doing everything I can to discourage
: stock MUDs based on Physmud++ before I release it... some assembly
: required, etc... but the obvious problem is that someone will archive
: areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
: more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?

how 'bout making it part of the code licence that you must write all the areas.
give them a 5 room demo so they can get it working and get used to the room
format but nothing more.
a lot of people will ignore this but some wont, and i could almost handle a
stock base if it had 100% new areas.
man Dwarven Daycare gives me the shits.

bye
TAO.
: --

: Nathan F. Yospe | There is nothing wrong with being a sociopath. Its
: yo...@hawaii.edu | getting caught thats a problem. Be a mad scientist
: UH Manoa Physics | Write poetry. Be an artist. Plot world domination.
: Biomedical Phys. | Panthers make great pets. Muhahahahahahahahahaha!!

--

if you're not part of the problem,
you're part of the problem.

[Carlos L. Myers]

> However (contrary perhaps to your view) I see the establishment of MUD
> guild(s) as a step in that direction since affiliation and high ranking
in
> the membership would be coveted and foster competition.

>
> I proposed a guild, "the Association of Good MUDs" about a year ago. IF
> members are allowed to rank one-another *using* some solid guidelines,
> in addition to some less weighty subjective points then there is nothing
> to fear at all -- least not if you run a good game.

I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of a guild.

How are you going to define what is a good mud and what is a bad mud? How
are you going to rate the social aspects of a mud? How are you going to
handle cases a mud is labled as good but, do to a reash of hostle players,
bad adminning, etc., turns into a bad mud. Most important of all, how are
you going to prevent a mud or admin from being black-balled buy members of
the guild?

Carlos Myers

[Jon A. Lambert]

Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <Pine.LNX.3.91.970225...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>...

> : [Martin Keegan]
> :
> : Quality not Quantity;
> : More Isn't Better.
>
> > [Nathan S. Yospe]
> >

> > Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we
> > cannot elliminate the existing stock material...

Shall we begin by destroying playerbases of Twink muds?
We can log in and foment rebellion.
Harrassing E-mails to mud's ISPs would be a good start!

>
> You need to make the distinction between creative and non-creative use of
> stock material, IMHO. Personally, I would not advocate its elimination.

I say we form a list of these offensive muds first.

> > so how can we increase the non stock competition?
>

> The mud that I am writing is a scratch mud. For some time, I have been toying
> with the idea of reserving part of its website for the promotion of scratch
> muds. What do ppl think of this? Are there any out there apart from Frontiers
> and PirateMUD?
>

No I think you are correct. These muds do appear to be free of any misogyny
and have pure bloodlines.

> > there is no way to determine if a MUD is stock or not when logging on.

Perhaps you can monitor these offenders on a regular basis and make
reports back to your home planet.

>
> You are missing the point I think. If we couldnt tell if these muds (lower
> case, purlease;) were stock, there would be no need for this thread.
>

There is no need for this thread. You have our orders.
Lets take this to private mail, we don't want THEM in our plan.

> > the obvious problem is that someone will archive
> > areas and semibases, just as LPs and Dikus have experienced, and once
> > more, stocks will arise. Anyone have any ideas?
>

Gas the fucking code..

> You will always have lazy ppl who want to start muds. And you will always have
> egotists who want their area/semibase to become popular and well-used,
> regardless of its possible/potential failings, inefficiencies and restrictions.
>

Yes we know, "Arbeiten Macht Mud"

Let me be the first to ask to be excluded from any such guild.

[Chris Turner]

Craig Sivils (csi...@blkbox.com) wrote:
: >We don't need more third-rate out-of-the-box "heavily modified Circle"

: >systems; we shouldn't hear talk of "changes" but of "features";
: >we must reject the notion that "familiar" is of necessity "good" -
: >who *really* wants "familiar areas" they can get on some other mud?

: I do, there is enough "differences" on many muds that sometimes it's
: nice to have a little something familiar to help you while you get
: adjusted to the new environment.

The only adjustment you ever really need to make is with commands - finding
the bakery or healer is all part of the game. If you log on and you know
imediately where you can get food, it means you've already skipped part of
the game - namely exploration. Wouldn't you find it boring if every
Doom-type game had exactly the same levels & puzzles, but just had a
different name?

: You sound just as arrogant as people who declare themselves to be

: experts at roleplaying and wish to set everyone else straight.

: People like different things, some people think painfulmud (tm) is so
: real that it's great, while others want cheesemud (tm) figuring that
: since mudding is escapism, they should really escape reality.

And some try out a few muds and cos 99% of the muds they try are
cheesemuds(tm) they think all muds are cheesemuds(tm) and then when they
find something that isn't - they think assume it must be a bad mud or a crap
mud because it doesn't have the same features as cheesemuds do.

There's the obvious analogy of OSes - people think that Crapdoze & Word are
the only things they can run, and get so used to the idea of running them
that when they encounter something better, they don't see it as better
because it isn't Crapdoze or Word etc...

: Contrary to your snotty view of the world.

: It's about fun. If they're having fun then what business is it of
: yours if it's just poor ole "stock" fun?

Because they might have more fun if there was something new for them to
play, rather than the same old "walk north 10 rooms, kill orc, walk back
again, get food, walk north..." type of thing you get because the mud-admin
couldn't be bothered to remove the stock areas and write something of her
own imagination.

[Kyle]

On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:

> : > Nice speech. Climb down from your soap box.
> :
> : I'm sure you're a nice guy George - it's just on here, you come across as such
> : a wanker.
>
> Because why? I told him to climb down from his soap box when he is
> pontificating like an elitist? Seems like it was an appropriate
> comment to me. Sounds like you are being the wanker here.
>
I followed the beginning of this thread and it seemed to me the original
poster was merely forwarding an observation he has made in an attempt to
generate an intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the concept of
intelligent discussion is foreign to you, George, and you misconstrue it
as 'pontificating'. Since this thread has become so large now, I only
scan the messages from you so I can have a laugh.

kyle

[Adam Wiggins]

>>Agreed... so lets start a discussion of what can be done. Obviously we

>>cannot elliminate the existing stock material... so how can we increase

>
>Well, the two options are to 1) not release it, or two cripple the
>distribution of it so that it needs assembly. You mentioned this
>yourself. Definately I'd advice that if you do release code, you only

Another option which I've often pondered but never heard of would be
a by-request sort of thing. You e-mail the maintainer(s) of the codebase
(who may or may not be the same as the authors) with an outline of what
you want to do, how you plan to do it, etc...then if they think it sounds
cool, they'll send you the codebase (in the some-assembly-required form
mentioned above). Of course, this method is totaly failible, as it only
takes one person to fake an application, archive together some zones, and
put it up for ftp. And it also requires 'maintenence' as far as screen
potential muds. Still, it seems that if your codebase was good (and
well-known, presumably, from your own mud's popularity) you'd get interested
parties actually willing to put some time into making real changes/additions.
I suppose, though, that this wouldn't cut down the number of stock muds,
since the 13 year olds will still go get CircleMUD as soon as they
figure out how to use ftp, but at least it would (hopefully) keep the
quality ratio for your own codebase up a little bit. Anyone ever
tried this?

[George Reese]

Kyle (leg...@fhs.csu.McMaster.CA) wrote:
:
:

: On 25 Feb 1997, George Reese wrote:
:
: > : > Nice speech. Climb down from your soap box.
: > :
: > : I'm sure you're a nice guy George - it's just on here, you come across as such
: > : a wanker.
: >
: > Because why? I told him to climb down from his soap box when he is
: > pontificating like an elitist? Seems like it was an appropriate
: > comment to me. Sounds like you are being the wanker here.
: >
: I followed the beginning of this thread and it seemed to me the original
: poster was merely forwarding an observation he has made in an attempt to
: generate an intelligent discussion. It seems to me that the concept of
: intelligent discussion is foreign to you, George, and you misconstrue it
: as 'pontificating'.

A person with little contribution to the community making moral judgments
on those who have contributed is pontificating. That is what the
original poster was doing. He said that those distributing stock code
were doing bad; furthermore, that they had a moral responsibility to
monitor how the software is being used. Given a lack of example on
his part, that is pontificating.

In addition, he seems to be suggesting that only those he deems worthy
should be allowed to run a mud. That is elitist.

: Since this thread has become so large now, I only

: scan the messages from you so I can have a laugh.

Your loss, not mine.

[Greg Munt]

Only if the newbies know where to find the so-called 'quality products'.

If they logon to 5 seperate muds, which just happen to all be StockMUDs, do
you think their interest in muds will last very long?

[Greg Munt]

> : [FIZZIX]
> :

> : *nod*
> : An example of an elitist:
> : "I hate you go away you suck"
> : An example of a reformist:
> : "You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"
> :
> : Pick your words more carefully, Reese.

> [Georgie]

>
> Exactly what are you referring to?

That was a joke right? *Please* tell me that was a joke, George? :)

[Nathan F. Yospe]

In article <5f89k9$d...@user1.inficad.com>, nigh...@user1.inficad.com
(Adam Wiggins) wrote:

:Another option which I've often pondered but never heard of would be

:a by-request sort of thing. You e-mail the maintainer(s) of the codebase
:(who may or may not be the same as the authors) with an outline of what
:you want to do, how you plan to do it, etc...then if they think it sounds
:cool, they'll send you the codebase (in the some-assembly-required form
:mentioned above).

This is what I've always planned to do when Physmud++ was ready for
consumption. It does make my job harder, though....

: Of course, this method is totaly failible, as it only

:takes one person to fake an application, archive together some zones, and
:put it up for ftp. And it also requires 'maintenence' as far as screen
:potential muds.

And the problem with that is, everyone will go for the bootleg, cause it is
less hassle than writing for permission.

:Still, it seems that if your codebase was good (and

:well-known, presumably, from your own mud's popularity) you'd get interested
:parties actually willing to put some time into making real changes/additions.

It helps to make the code changeable. As in, conviniently changeable,
flexible, and readable and understandable.

:I suppose, though, that this wouldn't cut down the number of stock muds,

:since the 13 year olds will still go get CircleMUD as soon as they
:figure out how to use ftp, but at least it would (hopefully) keep the
:quality ratio for your own codebase up a little bit. Anyone ever
:tried this?

No, but I intend to.

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : [FIZZIX]

: > :
: > : *nod*
: > : An example of an elitist:
: > : "I hate you go away you suck"
: > : An example of a reformist:
: > : "You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"
: > :
: > : Pick your words more carefully, Reese.
:
: > [Georgie]
: >
: > Exactly what are you referring to?
:
: That was a joke right? *Please* tell me that was a joke, George? :)

I am quite serious. Please explain what is being referred to above.

[Greg Munt]

On 2 Mar 1997, George Reese wrote:

> Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : > : [FIZZIX]
> : > :
> : > : *nod*
> : > : An example of an elitist:
> : > : "I hate you go away you suck"
> : > : An example of a reformist:
> : > : "You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"
> : > :
> : > : Pick your words more carefully, Reese.
> :
> : > [Georgie]
> : >
> : > Exactly what are you referring to?
> :
> : That was a joke right? *Please* tell me that was a joke, George? :)
>
> I am quite serious. Please explain what is being referred to above.

Your usual response to people who will not agree with you, no matter how
much you shout at, or flame them, is something along the lines of "I hate
you go away you suck" - in fact, I seem to remember you calling many ppl
involved in the TELNET NOW thread 'stupid morons' or something similar,
simply because they would not agree that you were right.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (or, in George's case, to correct
me regardless;)

[Pat Malone]

In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.9703...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk>,

Greg Munt <gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Its not just their loss, its a loss to the community, as more and more crap
>> muds give the quality muds a bad name, and steer potential newbies away.

<snip>

>Only if the newbies know where to find the so-called 'quality products'.
>If they logon to 5 seperate muds, which just happen to all be StockMUDs, do
>you think their interest in muds will last very long?

Hmm. When I was a newbie mudder, I really don't think I had the experience
to tell a 'stock, crap mud' from a 'quality product'. They just all seemed
pretty cool as an idea. Then, as I learned more, I went and found (or in
my case stayed put) the quality product the suited me.

So I think the idea of 'stock muds' discouraging newbies is a fallacy. They
may burn out post-newbies, and they certainly provide fuel for mod&enhance
evangelists.

--
Pat Malone - mal...@rmi.net
The most amazing part was that I didn't die! I landed on top of
a police car and it died.
- Arlo Guthrie

[George Reese]

Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: On 2 Mar 1997, George Reese wrote:
:
: > Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : > : [FIZZIX]
: > : > :
: > : > : *nod*
: > : > : An example of an elitist:
: > : > : "I hate you go away you suck"
: > : > : An example of a reformist:
: > : > : "You're wrong, and here's how we can fix it"
: > : > :
: > : > : Pick your words more carefully, Reese.
: > :
: > : > [Georgie]
: > : >
: > : > Exactly what are you referring to?
: > :
: > : That was a joke right? *Please* tell me that was a joke, George? :)
: >
: > I am quite serious. Please explain what is being referred to above.
:
: Your usual response to people who will not agree with you, no matter how
: much you shout at, or flame them, is something along the lines of "I hate
: you go away you suck" - in fact, I seem to remember you calling many ppl
: involved in the TELNET NOW thread 'stupid morons' or something similar,
: simply because they would not agree that you were right.
:
: Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (or, in George's case, to correct
: me regardless;)

I have never said anything like 'I hate you go away you suck.'

And context is everything. I called people 'stupid morons' who were
saying things completely wrong and then insisted on arguing their
points even after I explained their errors. When you point out to
someone who says the sky is red that it is in fact blue, yet they
still insist it is red, there is nothing left but to all a moron a
moron.

Finally, none of this has ANYTHING at all to do with this thread.
This is about some vendetta you and a couple of others have against me
(perhaps because you are the morons from the TELNET NOW thread?).

[Carlos L. Myers]

George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5fc9dl$5od$1...@darla.visi.com>...

> Greg Munt (gr...@uni-corn.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> :
> : Your usual response to people who will not agree with you, no matter
how
> : much you shout at, or flame them, is something along the lines of "I
hate
> : you go away you suck" - in fact, I seem to remember you calling many
ppl
> : involved in the TELNET NOW thread 'stupid morons' or something similar,

> : simply because they would not agree that you were right.
> :
> : Feel free to correct me if I am wrong (or, in George's case, to correct

> : me regardless;)
>
> I have never said anything like 'I hate you go away you suck.'
>
> And context is everything. I called people 'stupid morons' who were
> saying things completely wrong and then insisted on arguing their
> points even after I explained their errors. When you point out to
> someone who says the sky is red that it is in fact blue, yet they
> still insist it is red, there is nothing left but to all a moron a
> moron.

GROIN, not this again...

> Finally, none of this has ANYTHING at all to do with this thread.
> This is about some vendetta you and a couple of others have against me
> (perhaps because you are the morons from the TELNET NOW thread?).

The only person that was the biggest moron in that thread was you. You
stated that Telnet was outdated and should never be use. Ok, you have your
right to your opinion, but it is only your opinion. But you refussed to
hear any evidence that countered you opinion in any way, shape or form.
Add to the fact that you began to "preach" your opinion as if it was the
"absolute truth" even after others gave good examples that Telnet was still
usefull. To me, that is the actions of a moron.

Back on subject, I haven't seen your original post in this thread so I
don't know why some are flaming you this time. If you still have a copy of
that post, could you send it to me?

Next post I'll try to be more on topic. =P

Carlos Myers