Myth
jbl...@cs.tamu.edu
I'm trying to find a myth game to play on. Does anyone know where?
James R. Blakeney
jbl...@cs.tamu.edu
Trout Complex,Limbo(#0),,
I didn't mind seeing the advertisement for Anarchy, but Russ has a
point. Garbago like "Latex dildoes" are rarely created for the
enjoyment of players or for the betterment of the MUD. All they
do is take up db space, which could be used for perhaps more
creative items. What bothers me is the amount of "Anarchy"
based MUDs that are put up these days. The "no theme" theme
bores the piss out of me, and I think net lines could be
better put to use. The internet is bogged down enough, as it is.
Go ahead, flame me.
May TIM go with you!
--Trout.Complex of TinyTIM
Marcus J. Ranum
>What bothers me is the amount of "Anarchy"
>based MUDs that are put up these days.
Of course, such MUDs aren't really anarchies at all, since someone
presumably can reboot the server. Even Hurin's BloodMUD was eventually
corrupted when its mad wizard made himself invulnerable to the other
wizards.
I think an "anarchy" mud is, perhaps, boring simply because most
MUD software doesn't really have decent support for "magic". I suspect
that an MUD in which the players could re-write its rules while it was
running would be kind of interesting for a while - you could do a decent
rendition of a "war of wizards". This, of course, has been done in UberMud,
but it's just too easy to "win" by objectdestroy()ing the other players.
Now, if the way in which the wizards could modify the universe
rules locally were somehow limited (could be done in UberMud, with effort)
you could get some interesting anarchistic MUDs, indeed.
The current "anarchy" MUDs get tiresome because of the lack of
originality a lot of the spuds show. Of course, this applies to MUDding
in general.
"Ho, hum, another latex dildo, how terribly witty. <yawn>"
mjr./J_C
KIENENBERGER MIKE L
[....deleted for space conservation ...]
>MUD software doesn't really have decent support for "magic". I suspect
>that an MUD in which the players could re-write its rules while it was
>running would be kind of interesting for a while - you could do a decent
>rendition of a "war of wizards". This, of course, has been done in UberMud,
>but it's just too easy to "win" by objectdestroy()ing the other players.
>
> Now, if the way in which the wizards could modify the universe
>rules locally were somehow limited (could be done in UberMud, with effort)
>you could get some interesting anarchistic MUDs, indeed.
>
>mjr./J_C
This is an interesting idea. Could you please explain exactly what you mean?
(Yes, I, too, am working on Yet Another Mud [at least it's for a non-unix
system!])
Leo Plotkin
>
> Of course, such MUDs aren't really anarchies at all, since someone
>presumably can reboot the server. Even Hurin's BloodMUD was eventually
>corrupted when its mad wizard made himself invulnerable to the other
>wizards.
Silly me. And here I was, packing my bags for an ego trip,
convinced that BloodMUD was corrupted by my exhaustive testing
of /repeat and /quote...
Sigh. Those were the Little Yellow Different Better days...
As an aside, I wonder how long Anarchy will stay up once
doofi decide to start hacking player passwords with dozens
of /quote connect Foo = '/usr/dict/words.
Finrod Felagund
|In article <1990Oct1.0...@isis.cs.du.edu> lplo...@isis.cs.du.edu (Leo Plotkin) writes:
|> As an aside, I wonder how long Anarchy will stay up once
|> doofi decide to start hacking player passwords with dozens
|> of /quote connect Foo = '/usr/dict/words.
|
|Sorry, but what has this to do with 'Anarchy!'?
|As far as I know, this holds true for ANY MUD.
|In fact this holds true for many (most?) games/systems using
|password protection.
|
|
| Gerie.
|
|BTW, it's 'Anarchy!' with a '!'.
Heh.
You explicitly go out and advertise a mud where it's not forbidden,
nay, encouraged for players to spam each other using whatever means,
and you think that they're going to actually limit it to just things
like killing and pagebombing?
Get a clue. Take two, they're small. Take a third, you need it.
BTW, your name should really be 'DOOF', capitalized.
Finrod (who feels obligated to live up to his 'best flamer' nomination)
--
Finrod Felagund | It's simple. It's logical. It's easy to implement.
(was Z. Beeblebrox) | It leaves little for people to argue over.
b...@cs.purdue.edu | It's anti-USENET.
..!purdue!bee | -- Chuq Von Rospach, news.groups
Gerie H. Langeveld
> doofi decide to start hacking player passwords with dozens
> of /quote connect Foo = '/usr/dict/words.
Sorry, but what has this to do with 'Anarchy!'?
As far as I know, this holds true for ANY MUD.
In fact this holds true for many (most?) games/systems using
password protection.
Gerie.
BTW, it's 'Anarchy!' with a '!'.
--
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Gerie Langeveld UUCP: ...mcvax!cs.vu.nl!ghlange | // Only Amiga makes |
| --- Citius, Altius, FORTHius --- | \\X/ it possible! |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
Russ Nightfall Smith
->Sorry, but what has this to do with 'Anarchy!'?
->As far as I know, this holds true for ANY MUD.
->In fact this holds true for many (most?) games/systems using
->password protection.
Think about it...it's _real_ simple. Anarchy[!] has no rules against doing
such a thing. Others do. Gosh, this seems different, doesn't it?
-> Gerie.
->BTW, it's 'Anarchy!' with a '!'.
Or even with a $#&!
--
-> Russ "Nightfall" Smith <- | Don't just eat a hamburger ... eat the HELL
ru...@valkyrie.ecn.uoknor.edu | out of it.-- J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, SubMeister.
A Flitterby Hot Babe Awardee |--------------------------------------------
Hail Eris and pass the 'frop | DISCLAIMER: These opinions aren't anyone's.
Kim Dorian Flowers
>In article <1990Sep22.1...@news.clarkson.edu> resc...@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>>What bothers me is the amount of "Anarchy"
>>based MUDs that are put up these days.
> Of course, such MUDs aren't really anarchies at all, since someone
>presumably can reboot the server. Even Hurin's BloodMUD was eventually
>corrupted when its mad wizard made himself invulnerable to the other
>wizards.
> I think an "anarchy" mud is, perhaps, boring simply because most
>MUD software doesn't really have decent support for "magic". I suspect
>that an MUD in which the players could re-write its rules while it was
>running would be kind of interesting for a while - you could do a decent
>rendition of a "war of wizards". This, of course, has been done in UberMud,
>but it's just too easy to "win" by objectdestroy()ing the other players.
> Now, if the way in which the wizards could modify the universe
>rules locally were somehow limited (could be done in UberMud, with effort)
>you could get some interesting anarchistic MUDs, indeed.
How 'bout a MUD where you had to discover the rules? Then, when you figured
out the rules, you could take advantage of them to become a wizard.
Imagine that...a virtual research program.
If, as you suggested, it were possible to have different rules applying
in different parts of the MUD...well, things would definitely get interesting.
Kim Flowers
ki...@tybalt.caltech.edu
James Seidman
>How 'bout a MUD where you had to discover the rules? Then, when you figured
>out the rules, you could take advantage of them to become a wizard.
Gee, sounds sort of like UNIX... :)
Seriously, though, this sounds like a really neat idea. Make all of the
wizard commands available to everybody, but make them difficult to access
and completely undocumented. This would get especially neat if it was a
programmable MUD, where wizards could even change how you need to get to
the commands, make shortcuts for themselves, remove other wizards'
shortcuts, etc.
Somehow I think that coming up with a playable set of rules would be
difficult, though...
--
Jim Seidman (Drax), the accidental engineer.
UUCP: ames!vsi1!headland!jls
ARPA: jls%headla...@ames.nasa.arc.gov
Gerie H. Langeveld
>In <78...@star.cs.vu.nl> ghl...@cs.vu.nl (Gerie H. Langeveld) writes:
>Ah ha! Now THAT makes the difference! What _you_ mean by 'no rules'
>is that you give no definition on what you (apparently the sole source
>of authority) will or will not kick people out for.
>
>In other words, it has no rules. Just whimsy.
>Heh heh heh. No thankee.
Jezus! READ WHAT I SAID! What do you mean 'Just whimsy'. I won't
just kick someone out, because I feel like it. If I kick someone
out it has to be for a VERY GOOD reason. Noone has given me a reason
to kick him/her out yet. Noone got kicked out, toaded or booted yet.
>It has PLENTY to do with it. If your muck has NO, repeat, NO rules, then
>people are free to hack passwords, spam the server, etc, etc, with NO
>retaliation from authority. If this is not the case, then perhaps you'd
>best redefine the definition of your mud. It sure as hell ain't anarchy,
>because you've just claimed to be the authority on it.
Yes, I am an 'authority' on it. But the authority doesn't do anything
but keep the MUCK running. He will do a shutdown when it is needed.
Ofcourse you need an authority like that. But the authority doesn't
do anything more. (Maybe remove some 'sleepers' now and then, until
I changed the code.) He is not a referee, he doesn't tell people
what (not) to do. He just keeps the game running. (Note: The GAME.
Not the 'SYSTEM' used IN the game.)
Now. Let us say there was a COUNTRY, with TOTAL anarchy. Just try
to imagine that, ok? Suddenly someone or maybe even more than one
get the idea to try to get rid of the anarchy. The reason why
doesn't matter. Doesn't the system in that country have a right
to defend itself against such an attempt?
Or should it just sit there and let itself go down?
>->Are you all braindead or what?
(The 'all' is ofcourse a 'slight' exageration.)
>*snigger* Yes, we're all braindead. Obviously, you're the only person with
>any wits about you on the entire internet!
No, please don't flatter me, not the INTIRE internet. Maybe in a few
newsgroups.
>->Please use some brains before whining about Anarchy!.
>Please use some brains before logging onto a mud this guy runs, okay?
I agree! Please, please use some brains before logging into my MUCK!!!
Don't you want people who use their brains in your MUD, Russ?
It makes much better gameplay.
>(And no, I'm not trying to support my nomination, either. I've just heard
>about 4 too many messages from this guy slapping at everyone who has any
>problem with his mud.)
Oh, don't give me that crap! Now I'm the one slapping at everyone who
has a problem with my mud!!!
As far as I know, I posted an ad for my MUCK. This seems to have
gotten the attention of quit a crowd. Then rather silly assumptions
and nonsense remarks about Anarchy! started being posted.
I posted a few (Wow! Really 4 articles? My oh my, what a bandwidth it
must have caused!) articles correcting those assumptions and explaining
why certain remarks made no sense. Just doing that means I am
'slapping at everybody who has a problem with my MUCK'? Very strange.
Mmmh, at least one of those articles was a followup to you.
As you call my articles 'slapping at everyone who has a problem with
[my] mud', this means you must be one who has a problem with my MUCK.
What on earth for? Problems with a small MUCK like mine??!!
Gerie.
Gerie H. Langeveld
>
>You explicitly go out and advertise a mud where it's not forbidden,
>nay, encouraged for players to spam each other using whatever means,
>and you think that they're going to actually limit it to just things
>like killing and pagebombing?
[ sigh ]
Whatever got you the idea pagebombing etc. are 'encouraged'?
As I said you can do whatever you want in in my MUCK. I NEVER
encouraged 'players to spam each other using whatever means'.
Maybe you should read my initial posting again.
I don't care what anybody does in my MUCK, but since, like you say,
there are no rules, I can kick anybody out when players start
complaining. No, it does not mean that when a player starts
whining, "...but he just did...", the cause of his whining will be
kicked out just like that. Nobody got kicked out yet.
I'm still left with the question. What on earth has the hacking
of player passwds to do with 'Anarchy!'? It can be done on most
MUDs, WHATEVER the rules. Don't start whining about 'But your
MUCK has no rules'. That's got nothing to do with it.
Are you all braindead or what? No rules doesn't mean EVERYBODY
can do a @shutdown. And not EVERYBODY can @chown, @recycle, @toad
or @boot anybody/anything. Ofcourse they can't.
Nor does it mean that one player is allowed to screw up the game
for all. And NO, this does also not mean that that person will be
kicked out right away. Please use some brains before whining about
Anarchy!.
>Finrod (who feels obligated to live up to his 'best flamer' nomination)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Sorry.
Gerie.
Russ Nightfall Smith
->I don't care what anybody does in my MUCK, but since, like you say,
->there are no rules, I can kick anybody out when players start
->complaining. No, it does not mean that when a player starts
->whining, "...but he just did...", the cause of his whining will be
->kicked out just like that. Nobody got kicked out yet.
Ah ha! Now THAT makes the difference! What _you_ mean by 'no rules'
is that you give no definition on what you (apparently the sole source
of authority) will or will not kick people out for.
In other words, it has no rules. Just whimsy.
Heh heh heh. No thankee.
->I'm still left with the question. What on earth has the hacking
->of player passwds to do with 'Anarchy!'? It can be done on most
->MUDs, WHATEVER the rules. Don't start whining about 'But your
->MUCK has no rules'. That's got nothing to do with it.
It has PLENTY to do with it. If your muck has NO, repeat, NO rules, then
people are free to hack passwords, spam the server, etc, etc, with NO
retaliation from authority. If this is not the case, then perhaps you'd
best redefine the definition of your mud. It sure as hell ain't anarchy,
because you've just claimed to be the authority on it.
->Are you all braindead or what?
*snigger* Yes, we're all braindead. Obviously, you're the only person with
any wits about you on the entire internet!
Geek.
->Please use some brains before whining about
->Anarchy!.
Please use some brains before logging onto a mud this guy runs, okay?
->>Finrod (who feels obligated to live up to his 'best flamer' nomination)
(And no, I'm not trying to support my nomination, either. I've just heard
about 4 too many messages from this guy slapping at everyone who has any
problem with his mud.)
--
amol...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> [lotta ranting and raving which someone uncharitable, like me, would refer to
> as self-contradictory, with some hokey politics thrown in for fun.]
What people are trying to say is that when you run a MUD advertised as
having few or no rules, a MUD where you can do anything, players *will* spam
it. This is not conjecture, but documented historical fact. Ask around about
BloodMUD some time.
> As far as I know, I posted an ad for my MUCK. This seems to have
> gotten the attention of quit a crowd.
I find this just as surprising as you. I was content to let you find
out the hard way by yourself, but then some people tried to give you a clue,
and you started jumping on them like they don't know what they're talking
about. The fact is, they do.
Andrew
P.S. Note my quoting technique -- delete lots, and summarize. I officially
release this technique into the public domain. Feel *free* to use it. This
includes you, Dirque.
Russ Nightfall Smith
->Yes, I am an 'authority' on it. But the authority doesn't do anything
->but keep the MUCK running.
Which doesn't jibe with your claim that you'd kick off someone that was
doing something truly irritating. One or the other, please.
->Now. Let us say there was a COUNTRY, with TOTAL anarchy. Just try
->to imagine that, ok?
Please, no fantasies.
->Mmmh, at least one of those articles was a followup to you.
->As you call my articles 'slapping at everyone who has a problem with
->[my] mud', this means you must be one who has a problem with my MUCK.
->What on earth for? Problems with a small MUCK like mine??!!
Actually, I don't. I have a problem with your advertisements. They're
inaccurate. They're whiny. They're contradictory. What you do on your
MUCK is no big deal; I don't have to connect (and won't, because it seems
to me the entire objective is to appeal to people who want to be scum, and
that doesn't sound that entertaining). But come on, let's have some accurate
advertising... the paragraph I pointed out as contradicting the "no rules"
motif was noticed by an amazing number of people.
-> Gerie.
se...@unix.cis.pitt.edu
>that doesn't sound that entertaining). But come on, let's have some accurate
>advertising... the paragraph I pointed out as contradicting the "no rules"
>motif was noticed by an amazing number of people.
Oh come on now, stop being a pain in the posterior. Obviously if
there are no rules then the wizard can do as he damn well likes. At
least he is being honest about it, as opposed to MUDs with 'rules'
that the wizards bend and mutilate to justify their actions after the
fact. And no that is not a snipe at you Random, I'm hardly ever on
your mud (I don't even remember what its called these days, or where
it is, I gave up on it shortly after you started requiring e-mail
registration. Wasn't worth my time to mail you.) so I certainly
wouldn't know what wizards on your mud are like.
Sean Owens
se...@hpb.cis.pitt.edu