On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Joe Frohne wrote:
->I have to agree with you here. What is the point of badmouthing the stock
->muds. That dosen't accomplish anything. Instead of being negative, like
->so many of you seem to be, try just promoting good muds. Don't mention
->anything about the bad ones. Good & bad is all subjective anyway.
I wouldn't bad mouth the MUDs, or even go so far as saying a MUD that
meets the requirements is original. A better approach is to carefully
word what the SPCC does, and what being a member of the SPCC actually
means. It wouldn't mean the MUD is unoriginal, just that it didn't
meet the specific guidelines of the SPCC. And there would be a
purpose in that. It would help people tell the difference MUDs that
aren't in the SPCC because they didn't meet the guide lines, and MUDs
that aren't in the SPCC because they never applied.
-dak
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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