[MUD-Dev] Re: Unix is a mud (Re: Ugh, IS Diablo a mud?)

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

Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> Ah, but isn't this another arbitrary classification of mud, "real
> time".  Mud-dev is a turn-based mud.  ;)

Allow me to repeat myself (from "Putting names on things"):

--- 8< ---
When it comes to MUDs I am leaning more towards 3, 4 and 5. I have spent
quite a lot of time trying to find a simple definition that is broad enou=
gh
to cover actual usage, but still excludes systems which clearly are not
MUDs.  This is my definition (or close to it):

  A collaborative recreational virtual world (MUD) is a system which
  enables users to interact, affiliate and project a personality
  remotely through a computer system in near real time. The system allows
  the users to exchange successive utterances in such a way that the user=
s
  feel they are in an user-user "here and now" interactive situation.
  The system presents itself as a (discrete or continuous) set of
  locations. Users can move between locations and are able to distinguish
  between "here" and "there" (locations contain information).
--- >8 ---

I just wonder, is this an acceptable definition for the purpose of
discussing MUD affordances, usage and user perception and feelings?  Of
course, this turn based thing is interesting. Turnbased systems aren't
excluded from my definition, but I think they would have to be fairly sna=
ppy
to count as a "here and now" situation. Sometimes mud-dev does in fact
appear to fullfill this criterion. :)

> Mud-dev has solved many of the perceived problems associated with
> user-scripting and cheating.  One cannot "advance" on mud-dev
> through the use of scripted respones.  JC has started a list Meta
> thread (OOC?) which in essence is discussing 'list advancement' and
> 'game-balance'.  Do some users have a perception that certain
> posts (or posters) are too high level?  Do list newbies fear posting
> in the same manner as they fear a PK?

But it hasn't done much to protect users from virtual rape. I could easil=
y
rape you by faking my sender address.  That's a shame.  (I have a small
advantage here because of my exotic name with an "=D8", which your email
program doesn't handle well :)  I've also seen muds like mud-dev being
attacked by spamming scripts telling all users that one particular user i=
s
on holiday.  Pretty annoying if there are no admins around.  This problem
could be solved by introducing PKing to mud-dev. Of course, hacking the
system to implement PK would be easy. I am worried about newbie bashing a=
s
well, I was personally having a hard time here as a newbie.  I was
persitently attacked, people tried to kill me on mere sight, and it
eventually turned out to be a slight misunderstanding on their part and a=
n
extraordinary eagerness to participate on my part.  I think newbies shoul=
d
be given some slack, maybe PK protection until they reach level 30, as in
M59.  We should all try to remember that newbies need to make themselves
visible in order to find friends to explore the world with. It isn't nice=
 to
fall down into the deepest dungeons when all you have to protect your lif=
e
with is a mace.

> Ok, maybe some of you  may have strong suspicions my responses are
> scripted. =20

Yes I do, and I think you might as well admit it. Admin! Jon is cheating.
Look, I have it all logged:=20

   "On 26 Sep 98, Ola Fosheim Gr=B0stad wrote:"

And he ruined one of my points in the process.  This isn't fair.  I want =
new
arguments to make up for all the time I lost!

> I'll admit I have strong suspicions some posters are
> cheating when they use phrases like "well X comes for free in my
> implementation".  :P

It is called roleplaying! :P

Ola wrote:
> > What's the bloody point in discussing a classification system
> > without discussing the purpose?

> We are asking exactly the same question.  Nobody is answering it.

I know.  And I basically asked the same question indirectly in my "puttin=
g
names on things" post.  No response.  I figured a more tabloid and
provocative one could help.

> I also agree that it may be a "politically" motivated question.

So, if it is...  What does "politics" imply?  I would say that politics
implies defining a valuesystem.  As most listmembers (myself included)
probably have invested quite a bit of time in MUDs they clearly would
benefit from defining MUDs as having value.  If MUDs don't have value we
would have wasted a fortune.  The more value MUDs have, the more meaning =
of
life does our own lives have. Now we get to the really tricky part: defin=
ing
out those things that could be associated with MUDs which we see as a thr=
eat
to our general valuesystems. Quake is a sure bet with it's utterly
antisocial and destructive philosophy. Diablo is a good second with an
utterly unstable world situation, humans like somewhat stable surrounding=
s.=20
I don't see anything wrong with this, in fact, I even agree to a large
degree.  It's important to ask oneself as a designer if one believes that
the system  being created is going to be beneficial to the user's life as=
 a
whole.  I don't see how repetitive and addictive MUDs which require 8 hou=
rs
playtime per day fit the bill.  I see this as being manipulative, and it =
is
comparable to encouraging gambling addiction. However, this is because my
meaning of life (MOL) is what it is. My MOL will (hopefully) be an integr=
al
part of the visions I pursue, and therefore also a part of what I am
interested in MUDs and probably also how I define them.

So, if we are not able to agree on the the definition of MUD then we are
probably not going to agree on the vision either. That is good in my
opinion. However, we might be able to agree that a (temporary or local)
definition of MUD is reasonable for discussing a particular vision or iss=
ue
without that really being a threat to anything of value. Right?

> I have no desire to see the list come to any agreement whatsoever
> on the definition.  Why?  Because it logically follows that if
> one successfully "nails this jelly to a tree" it will stiffen and dry
> up making discussions of IRC social interaction, graphical servers,
> game play in Zork and Diablo, pure story-telling, habitats, etc.
> off-topic and therefore low-signal.

Oh no, it doesn't!  If we are allowed to discuss hardcoded vectors then w=
e
may discuss Zork as well. (Btw, there are plenty of good reasons for usin=
g
fixed length vectors and hardcoded limits, in 2D arrays it makes for fast=
er
execution on most processors (log2size), static vectors in structs may he=
lp
on caching, O(N^2) algorithms and I(N^2) look up tables (LUT)s may requir=
e
small vector sizes etc)
--
Ola