27 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Ok, folks, we all know that Samson, Davion, and Asylumius put in countless hours here and on the Dev port of MudBytes to make MudBytes what we've asked them to.. how about we give them a little well earned encouragement by clicking one of the vote options up there? :wink:

Hint: The first two choices are your best bet in keeping with the spirit of this poll, but any of the choices are available if you really don't feel that way like I do. *shrug*
27 Oct, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
*clap* *clap* We love you guys, yall are doing a great job! Keep up the good work :grinning:
28 Oct, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Uhh, I can't really see a point to this poll. Either it's going to state the obvious (first poll option) or end up starting a flame war.
28 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Or we could use it to gather constructive criticism. As the poll already reflects, there are people who feel there is room for improvement. Maybe if people were willing to elaborate on what kind of improvement they're looking for we might be able to avoid the possibility of a flamewar.
28 Oct, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
1) Lose the retarded smilies. Real mudders use emotes.
2) Allow people to opt out of the mud list advertising.
28 Oct, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Smilies are optional, you don't have to turn them on to be converted.
29 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
1) Lose the retarded smilies. Real mudders use emotes.
2) Allow people to opt out of the mud list advertising.


I believe your second point has already been addressed a few times now, and regarding the first one, do you use emotes in forum posts, because I've certainly seen plenty of mudders using smilies even in muds.
29 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
Uhh, I can't really see a point to this poll. Either it's going to state the obvious (first poll option) or end up starting a flame war.


Of course, the real point of the poll is to give our admins here a little encouragement and show some appreciation so they know that we do appreciate their efforts. But if they can also get a little constructive critisism out of it, all the better. Afterall, while you feel it's obvious that we all like what they've done, they can't possibly be hearing it often enough. :wink:
29 Oct, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Tyche said:
1) Lose the retarded smilies. Real mudders use emotes.
2) Allow people to opt out of the mud list advertising.


I believe your second point has already been addressed a few times now, and regarding the first one, do you use emotes in forum posts, because I've certainly seen plenty of mudders using smilies even in muds.


Unfortunately turning off images in the web browser removes some of the navigation buttons. So if you mean "addressed" as in: No we're going to make you download every banner advertisement of every mud listed here at every click regardless of the fact that most of the readers here do in fact run their own damn muds or come here to download code to run muds and that self-advertising to an audience of game makers is a colossal waste of time. then it was I suppose tt was in a way.

The smilies graphics appear on every page at the bottom and there's a huge waste of space to the left filled with hideous faces in edit mode regardless of whether you turned them off or not. The only difference is posts contain nonsense phrases delimated by colons (i.e. :asskiss:).

Which reminds me…
3) If a post is intended to be ass-kissing perhaps there should be a graphic thread marker for that. That is for people who need and require pictures.

4) Instead of banning and censoring users because of whiners and crybabies who like to complain, maybe you should have an ignore feature. The kill file feature on TMC works well. Obviously, well in my experience (and I think proven here), such policies create site terrorists. Then again if recreating the tyranny and mistakes in administration over at MudMagic under a different set of names is the goal….well then… nevermind.

Oh and…
1B) If I have emoticons off, why do I have to uncheck the button at the bottom of every edit to prevent my text from being mashed in graphical emoticons?
29 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
1) The smiles are not going anywhere. "Real" forum users use smilies and not emotes. Last I checked this isn't a mud, it's a forum.

That being said - if the option to not view emoticons is working, instead of the graphic for :flipbird: you'll just see :flipbird: in the text you're reading. It isn't practical to remove it entirely or have it converted into something else. So is it working or no? Do you see the text version or the graphic version?

1b) The checkbox at the bottom of the posts isn't changing either. That's not bound to your personal preferences. It's designed so that if you need to ilustrate something with the emoticon text it will work. Much like individual posts can turn off the bbcode functions.

3) Well then I guess there should be an option for when a post is intended to be a whining rant with no constructive purpose other than to spew hatred toward others. A cool little graphic of an AK-47 or something. Or maybe big orange text headers saying "WARNING: Someone is being a jackass in this post!"

4) Aside from Locke, who I'm sorry to say just didn't get it, nobody else has been banned or censored for anything here. A killfile is a wonderful option for those who want to waste their time flagging ignores on all the jackasses, problem is, they tend to forget themselves in the process. But if you really REALLY want such a feature, nothing is stopping you from offering your time and expertise to produce it for the QSF code. The rest of us just don't seem to have a need for it. And I'm not sure which policies you're referring to as creating site terrorists. Dealing with them isn't something exclusive to us, MM, TMC, TMS, Mudlab, or any other forum out there. And citing TMC isn't even a worthwhile example because even Icculus has had to ban people outright for violating policy.

Simply put: Locke violated policy. It's documented policy. He was punished according to policy. This site is not driven by anarchy.

2) So I saved the best for last. Banners. The entire point of putting them up was to provide some generous free advertising for those of us who run muds. You seem to be under the delusion that the sole purpose of the site is for developers to trade code. While that's certainly one of the main functions, it isn't the only one. It's been mentioned before, and will continue to be mentioned again and again until the thicker headed among us understand: The banners are not going away. If they bother you *THAT* much, I hear Firefox has some nifty image filtering extensions that should work perfectly for you.
29 Oct, 2006, Davion wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Unfortunately turning off images in the web browser removes some of the navigation buttons.

Hmm. That shouldn't happen AFAIK all our navigation buttons aren't images, as most of them are used so that we can have a multi-language support for things. I guess there's a couple arrows though. I just took a spin through the site without any of the images on and it seemed fine to navigate through, although some of the background are images and things looked bad and hard to read, but useable.
29 Oct, 2006, Cratylus wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
It's easier to snipe about administration than it is to administer.

For those whose interests are not served by anarchy, rules suit them.

If an anarchic forum with no rules suits you, I suggest you establish one.

I would also point out that supporting someone else's efforts is not
automatically ass-kissing. There's nothing that I need Samson for, yet
I applaud his work here and hope he and the others enjoy
continued success. If you think that's ass kissing, then you're really
beyond reach of any words I can string together.

Honestly.
Would it be so hard for you to express some positive regard?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
29 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Well stated, Cratylus! You're absolutely right, even my setting up this poll wasn't meant to be a form of ass-kissing, but rather a reminder to our three admins here that their work is appreciated since it doesn't get expressed often enough sometimes and it's all they've really got for motivation to continue doing it, and if we can incorporate a little constructive critism at the same time, well, that's just a bonus bit of icing on the cake. :wink:
29 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
Uhh, I can't really see a point to this poll. Either it's going to state the obvious (first poll option) or end up starting a flame war.


I don't think so. Personally I selected the "room for improvement" option, not because I think the site is bad, but because I think it's still early days. A mud resource like this takes time to mature and come into its own.
29 Oct, 2006, Omega wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
This site will always have room to improve, nomatter how big and cool it gets, the reason for that is, there will always be another site out there that will be trying to compete, trying to control the overall power of the mudding community, and therefore, the only way to be on top, is to always have that room for improvement, ways to continue to enhance the site, without making it overly complicated.
29 Oct, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Zeno said:
Uhh, I can't really see a point to this poll. Either it's going to state the obvious (first poll option) or end up starting a flame war.


I don't think so. Personally I selected the "room for improvement" option, not because I think the site is bad, but because I think it's still early days. A mud resource like this takes time to mature and come into its own.


So you don't think the 3 are doing a great job? That was the point of my post.
29 Oct, 2006, Guest wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Might be a bit surprising to some, but I myself chose the "room for improvement" option. Why? For basically the reason KaVir stated. We're still a young site. Still working things out. And there's always room to make things better than they are. Whether that's through adding new features or th refinement of existing features, nothing is ever perfect. No site is ever "done".

What makes or breaks a site like this is not what the administration offers. It's what the users do with what's been offered. Think a category of code is lacking? Contribute some stuff to it. Think the mudlist is too small? Add yours to it if you run one. Don't like where the discussions are going? Start a new topic about something you'd like to see discussed.

If the site doesn't offer you something you want, then by all means feel free to suggest it. Go into as much or as little detail about it as you think will help, and get some discussion going on it. The mudlist was born more or less this way, even though more of the actual discussion took place off-site. If you have experience with PHP, the source code to this site is available at qsfportal.com. Offering a patch for an annoyance or for an entirely new module will go a long way to having it accepted.
29 Oct, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
So you don't think the 3 are doing a great job?


Sure they are, but that doesn't mean there isn't any room for improvement.
29 Oct, 2006, Conner wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Seems pretty fair.. and there is certainly always going to be some room for improvement, but if there are specific places where one feels there is room for specific improvement, I'd hope that one would then post something here so that our three admins can try to do something about it.
29 Oct, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Zeno said:
So you don't think the 3 are doing a great job?


Sure they are, but that doesn't mean there isn't any room for improvement.


Thus why I said I didn't understand the point of the poll. There are options that could be selected at the same time. We didn't need the poll.
Random Picks
0.0/21