24 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 201st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I wouldn't say "many", but "some". And how many of those muds do you think will accurately report the number of unique connections they've got?

Only "some" muds would actually consciously break the rules, but without the unique IP restrictions it wouldn't be cheating, so technically they wouldn't be breaking any rules.

It's hard to say how many muds will accurately report their numbers, there would be more pressure on the bigger muds to do so, and it'd trickle down from there.
25 Mar, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 202nd comment:
Votes: 0
IP addresses are NOT valid as a means of determining identity. They never have been, and never will be.

Usually, this rant is brought on by people talking about trying to ban multi-players by IP address, and then me (or someone else, on occasion) reminding folks that lots of places use NAT these days, and may well all resolve to the same IP address. That part doesn't apply here, since we're talking the unique IP address/PORT pairing.

However, it's still not a valid identification. IP addresses can be spoofed. Additionally, there really are people running muds out there on dynamic IP addresses, but using dynamic DNS to keep up with the changes. If your hostname resolves to the correct IP, it can change every day and aside from a small window of propogation, most of the players will be able to find it just fine. I seriously doubt any admin will want to hand-edit their crawler listing every time their IP changes though, especially since it's often at random and unannounced times beyond their control.

If you REALLY want to ensure that a mud server is who it says it is, then you need to use something like public key pairs.
25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 203rd comment:
Votes: 0
Look, if people want to cheat, they will cheat; the simplest way of cheating is just reporting a made-up number in the first place! How many times are we going to have to all-but-one agree that we can't guarantee MUDs will be honest, that IP addresses aren't ok, and so forth? Can we please not try to solve the world's social problems and get on to problems that are under our control?
:sigh:
25 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 204th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It's hard to say how many muds will accurately report their numbers


Seems to me that a mud could report a random number between X and Y, and what
is that our business? If a mud lies on its MSSP data, that's not up to the protocol to "error-correct".
This appears to be the consensus.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
25 Mar, 2009, Guest wrote in the 205th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Scandum said:
It's hard to say how many muds will accurately report their numbers


Seems to me that a mud could report a random number between X and Y, and what
is that our business? If a mud lies on its MSSP data, that's not up to the protocol to "error-correct".
This appears to be the consensus.


It appears to be consensus because it's common sense. Wait, did I just say that? :)

None of the variables in MSSP can be verified for accuracy. I could falsely report that my MUD has 800 players, was created in 1874, and is based on the WoW engine. Obviously I'd be lying. The protocol has no way to know this. So the sites will simply have to do what they always do. Audit the data. Boot anyone from the system who falsifies their information.
25 Mar, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 206th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
None of the variables in MSSP can be verified for accuracy. I could falsely report that my MUD has 800 players, was created in 1874, and is based on the WoW engine. Obviously I'd be lying. The protocol has no way to know this. So the sites will simply have to do what they always do. Audit the data. Boot anyone from the system who falsifies their information.

Agreed - but that's only going to work if the listing sites consider the information falsified. I'm not aware of any which require you to list the player count based on the number of unique IP addresses. So who's going to audit the MUDs that refuse? And how can you audit something like that anyway?

Auditing the playerbase for TMC is fairly simple right now. You connect to the MUD, type 'who', and if the number of players is below the average given on their MUD listing you have a potential problem. You then check back twice more, and if the number of players is still below the average on both occasions, their listing needs to be updated.

But auditing for unique IP addresses isn't possible without some sort of administrative access to the MUD.
25 Mar, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 207th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But auditing for unique IP addresses isn't possible without some sort of administrative access to the MUD.


Agreed. And that's not something your average MUD admin is going to give some random person claiming to be from a listing site.
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 208th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But auditing for unique IP addresses isn't possible without some sort of administrative access to the MUD.

You check the mssp output, connect two characters from the same ip, and check the mssp output again. If the count goes up by 2 the conclusion is obvious.
25 Mar, 2009, Shigs wrote in the 209th comment:
Votes: 0
The fact of the matter is.. if MUD A reports 150 average players and a user logins to find there's only 10 online. The majority of time the player will quit or hang about looking out for these other 140 users and quit soon after. Having realised the informations false.

Data verification is the job of the listing. There are a few methods. Such as a input form to 'report false data' with a brief description which will then result in the mud being flaged for adminstrative auditing.

People, lie, cheat and steal. As mentioned its a social problem, Which will be faced with a social solution.

Scandum. You're right you can check for 'Unique IP's' but as mentioned countless times. Why would you want too? You're ailenating any MUD that has players connecting from Public Access Points and by forcing MUD admins to provide this obfuscated data. You've failed at the first hurdle.. Presenting the muds true data.

Not a third partys interpretation of it.
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 210th comment:
Votes: 0
Alright, how about two variables: "PLAYERS" and "UNIQUE PLAYERS" - the last one having an IP requirement.
25 Mar, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 211th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Alright, how about two variables: "PLAYERS" and "UNIQUE PLAYERS" - the last one having an IP requirement.


I am utterly aghast.

I just do not understand how you can stand there with this level of obstinacy
and retain any shred of hope that you're being reasonable.

You are becoming damage to MSSP.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
25 Mar, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 212th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Alright, how about two variables: "PLAYERS" and "UNIQUE PLAYERS" - the last one having an IP requirement.


I'm sure I suggested that before (although not as unique players, but as unique IP addresses)…yes, I think it would be preferable. It would remove much of the incentive for people to lie, if they can simply choose not to give out that information.
25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 213th comment:
Votes: 0
Plebiscite time: who all here thinks that using IP addresses is useful or otherwise a good idea? Clearly at least Scandum thinks they're extremely important. Anybody else? Speak now or forever hold your peace :wink:
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 214th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I am utterly aghast.

You get your way and you're still not happy? You've got some interesting issues.
25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 215th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I'm sure I suggested that before (although not as unique players, but as unique IP addresses)…yes, I think it would be preferable. It would remove much of the incentive for people to lie, if they can simply choose not to give out that information.

People always have the same incentive to lie, how does using IP addresses change that? Anyhow, people can lie with or without the field separation.
25 Mar, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 216th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
You get your way and you're still not happy? You've got some interesting issues.

He didn't "get his way" – his "way" is that we drop the IP silliness. you seem to be the one insisting on keeping a separation that basically everybody but you is against. At least KaVir is putting an argument in favor of it that hasn't been brought up before, whereas you keep repeating the same things despite several rebuttals being presented.
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 217th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Plebiscite time: who all here thinks that using IP addresses is useful or otherwise a good idea? Clearly at least Scandum thinks they're extremely important. Anybody else? Speak now or forever hold your peace :wink:

It would be an extended variable, not a core one, so Mud lists can use it if desired. No need to panic.
25 Mar, 2009, Shigs wrote in the 218th comment:
Votes: 0
Whats to stop me falsefying both fields?

For that matter whats to stop me having Players: 500, Unique Players: 500?
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 219th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
you seem to be the one insisting on keeping a separation that basically everybody but you is against.

You're appealing to some unknown authority again. It's well known that God is basically on my side. Seriously, drop it already.
25 Mar, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 220th comment:
Votes: 0
Shigs said:
For that matter whats to stop me having Players: 500, Unique Players: 500?

David Haley's Momma is what'll stop you, be afraid, very afraid.

Perhaps one day it'll be as unthinkable to falsify your MSSP data as to break the Diku license, it's all a matter of perceived social pressure.
200.0/292