[MUD-Dev] Re: META: What are you looking for in this list?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

J C Lawrence wrote:
> Writing as list owner:
[...]
>   In a telephone call today, Raph raised the question of the purpose
> of the list: educational or research?  Translation: Is the purpose
[...]
> The problem is that we loose the
> people still in StockMUDWorld who then have no idea what we are
> talking about

Why do you consider that to be a problem?  I don't!  Basically, they will
see whatever there is to see whenever someone actually finish something
worth using?

>  For many of
> us writing networking code, a mini byte-coded language, algorithmic
> simulations, or whatever is no longer a concern.

There are plenty of "algorithmic simulation" approaches that have never
really been discussed on the list from what I can tell. I would really like
to see more discussions breaking free from the traditional MUD/DnD RPG
"luggage".  It would actually have been nice to see new list members not
belonging to the traditional MUD community.

>   What is *YOUR* purpose and interest in this list?  What would you
> really like to get out of the list?  What would you like to do with
> the list?

The advantage with a list with a broad focus is that it is capable of
sustaining a continuous dialog. The disadvantage seems to be that unrelated
threads are competing for attention, thus those threads dealing with a more
subtle and difficult subject which demands special attention and quite a bit
of reflection may die off prematurely. Which is too bad... :(

I think it would be beneficial if the list focused more on the issues which
aren't discussed on other lists.  I'm not sure if it is a good idea to deal
with everything relating to MUDs. There are plenty of places to discuss
published codebases, RPG mechanics (spellsystems, alignment etc) and social
issues. www.ccon.org for instance has lists dealing with virtual world
psychology, anthro-sociology and (non-tech) architecture.

What I see as the main asset for mud-dev is that quite a few of it's members
have been focusing on novel approaches to mud design.  I am particularly
interested in general discussions about the skeleton of a design.  That is,
the main philosophy (both conceptual and technical) in a design.  I am also
interested in how list members try to incorporate approaches from other
fields in their design.  So basically I would like to see more and more in
depth discussions and comparisons of non-mainstream server-client design
approaches.  I'd also like to see more discussions on the server-client
split. I do however see the value of discussing existing systems and how
users perceive a system, maybe not in their own right, but because such
discussions can be essential for designers evaluating a design while it
still is on paper. It is almost always interesting to read about experiences
from large scale commercial mud systems, perhaps because the user mass in
such systems is "somewhat representative". I would also like to see less
threads assuming "a regular text rpg". Pointers (www) to interesting
websites which could influence a mud design in new directions is always
interesting.

Of course, asking for help on a dedicated list with dedicated participants
is a great way to learn. I am personally reluctant to do so, I am kinda used
to look things up or just try to roll my own (which can be way too time
consuming).  The result is probably that I miss some neat libraries which I
could have used instead. I think it would've been neat if you created an
additional mailinglist dedicated to the more specific issues of a design. A
mailing list with a low posting threshold dealing with issues like "how do I
make a socket nonblocking", "what is the benefits of so and so alignment
system", "what graphic engines are available?", "is there a better way to do
this?" etc.  A group with a lower posting threshold would be good because
then maybe people would exchange reusable C++/java code stubs and eventually
start to collaborate on a lowlevel mud-library.  I wouldn't like to post
code to mud-dev as it is, simply because the nasty sides would affect my
pride (unless I just type it in directly to illustrate something). However,
I wouldn't mind too much in a dedicated first-aid/source-exchange list
because it wouldn't be unusual :) and code wouldn't be expected to be
perfect. I guess what I am suggesting is a more noisy "think aloud"
companion list for new designs in progress.

Btw, the threads I participate in on mud-dev does not accurately define my
interests. I quite often reply to things because I either want to see the
issue resolved and out of my mailbox or because I can't help myself
commenting. I'm not sure if this holds for other participants, but I am
somewhat perplexed by this myself.
--
Ola