Haven't been following the thread closely, so this may have already
been dealt with, but....
What happens if someone has made a lot of internal or very subtle
changes that aren't necessarily obvious and can only be discovered
by playing the mud extensively, and that mud's admins just hasn't
gotten around to building new world files?
Someone in the guild will come along and go to the mud, not immediately
recognize the differences, and publically declare it "unoriginal".
Which is to say, what defines an original mud? New world files?
Changes to the source code? Only that part of the source code affects
what the players see? Or any part of the source code (if the entire
database system is completely re-written to allow for mobs or rooms to
be handled in a different way which has subtle affect, or maybe only
affects certain mobs or rooms that are not easy to find, etc.)?
There are too many things that may not be obvious by casual inspection
that makes this a bad idea to go around publically declaring that
this mud is "good", and this mud is "bad"...
Also, see comments below:
>----------
>From: Justin[SMTP:c616077@SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:58 PM
>To: CIRCLE@POST.QUEENSU.CA
>Subject: Re: SPCC & Guild of Implementors
>
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Chuck Reed wrote:
>> I think this Guild of Imps is a good idea minus the "badmouthing" of muds
>> part. There would be nothing wrong with giving out a list of "originaly
>> coded" muds, but saying someone's mud is "unoriginal" and posting it all
>> over the net is just a bit rude IMHO. It is the only counter productive
>> thing I can see about it however, it sounds like a good idea to work on.
>
>If you don't like being called fat, lose the damn weight.
But what if you have some sort of compulsive eating disorder?
>Being called unoriginal if you are so--and people also need to know what
>we would qualify as "original"--is not rude, it's the truth.
Just remember that some people prefer stock muds because of the
familiarity. The most fair way to handle this is to rate the mud
relative to how stock it is. Don't say this mud is "bad" or
"unoriginal", say it is "stock" or "nearly stock".
And then, be careful to say something like "As far as we could
ascertain, it appears to be very stock-ish." or "While the world
is completely re-written, nothing else seems to have changed from
stock."
You may still be lying out of your own ignorance of the source code,
but it isn't *as* damaging if you are wrong... (though it is still
not a good thing to do)
>
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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