> Doesn't sound witty and fun. Besides, it isnt elitist coders, it is
> people who dont like the fact that the circlemud name has been disgraced
> by the many muds that claim to be original and simply are stock areas
> and code.
Okay, so you say that any muds that aren't what you deem to be "original"
will be added to a list of "bad" muds. You also say that this disgraces the
circlemud name because they claim to be original and simply are stock. Well,
what about the muds that DON'T claim to be original? They'll be added to the
"bad" list, even though they don't fit the criteria of a "bad" mud? Lots of
players enjoy, and some even prefer, playing stock areas. So just because
there are areas on your mud that are not solely for your mud, that means that
you are disgracing the circlemud name? My mud has a lot of areas that are
what you consider stock, but not what I consider stock. Many of the areas
are from other code bases, converted over by me, and adjusted by me. Other
areas are on maybe one or two other muds, so these are defined by you as
commonplace? I just don't feel that you have a very good argument on what
I explained above. You can of course do whatever you want, we can't stop
you, but I, for one, will be the first to say that if this web page does
end up happening, I will shun it.
-- Leif Bogwald
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST