13 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 261st comment:
Votes: 0
hmmmm… actually I sort of thought it was two guys writing code with two more of us domineering admins telling them that getting such things included officially will mean not going with the telnet subneg method because we don't want to rewrite the network handlers for little or no benefit beyond MSSP. That discussion wasn't about the merits of the protocol, it was about the merits of one method of speaking the protocol over another and which one we want in the official distribution for a major codebase. Something that, despite what you seem to think, is necessary for widespread adoption of MSSP.

None of us was talking smack, unless pointing out your potential hidden agendas is talking smack. You've been quite aggressively pushing a method that many people simply don't want and have been quite aggressive in making it known you think anyone who adopts Cratyus' plaintext methods is an asshole out to subvert the One True Method or something. And we're doing something constructive. Hashing out how to support this protocol. If you'd prefer we didn't bother, then by all means continue to insult the people putting forth the effort and watch as MSSP withers and dies when nobody wants to put up with you anymore.
13 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 262nd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Bunch of girls who prefer to talk smack above doing something constructive, pretty pathetic.


It looks to me like those girls have your number.

All you're doing at this point is blubbering
and ranting about not getting your way.

Maybe a different strategy…like cooperation and
open-mindedness…is worth trying at this point.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 263rd comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
All you're doing at this point is blubbering and ranting about not getting your way.

Maybe a different strategy…like cooperation and open-mindedness…is worth trying at this point.

How am I not getting my way? I've got the spec up and running with everyone who's actually contributing more or less happy with it. The 9 muds listed also follow the spec correctly, showing that the concept works. The only problem is a handful of guys acting like pricks, turning what could be a positive development into something incredibly negative.

I'll once again make an effort to stop feeding the trolls, I sure as hell am guilty of that.
14 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 264th comment:
Votes: 0
It's more of a case that you only seem to see people as contributing when they agree with your particular take on this and your particular method of transmitting the data that results from it. Anyone else is just an obstructionist, even if all we're doing is trying to step back and take it a little slower or deliver the same information in an alternate format that doesn't mean tearing up the heart of the socket code to do it.

Quote
I'll once again make an effort to stop feeding the trolls, I sure as hell am guilty of that.


Please do, that would be lovely. Because right now even those of us who support the idea are having a hard time justifying that with every hostile response you make.
14 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 265th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum, I find you absolutely fascinating. It's just amazing to me that in the
post immediately after you say this:

Quote
Bunch of girls who prefer to talk smack above doing something constructive, pretty pathetic.


You actually have the bald-faced audacity to say this:

Quote
I'll once again make an effort to stop feeding the trolls, I sure as hell am guilty of that.


I am not sure, but you may actually have reached some kind of epic
status with just that one maneuver. Kudos.


In any case, it sounds like you're happy with the progress you're
making, so I hope you'll get around to not complaining and insulting
people who are simply advancing the interests you claim to have.
I wish you great success.

One last note.

I recommend folks read the thread Scandum linked, in its entirety,
post by post. Not skim it. Read it…for comprehension. I think
you'll all find exactly the opposite of what Scandum did.

This alone should tell us all something, I think.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 266th comment:
Votes: 0
It's interesting that the main response to disagreement here is a litany of personal insults, including (but not limited to): butt plugs, "girliness" (heh – do I detect a theme here? Nah, Scandum isn't sexist, he said so himself), acting like pricks. So yes, please do stop "feeding the trolls", or whatever it is exactly that you're doing.

In the meantime I will make an appeal to whoever is still actually reading this thread and ask that you please not let this wonderful idea of a protocol die simply because of this ridiculousness…

Personally, I'm ok changing the name of the protocol if that would make Scandum feel better about us playing in one sandbox and him having his own to himself. If that means we can go forward like normal people instead of having to deal with this crap at every iteration of discussion, I'm all for that. Scandum, would that satisfy you?
14 Apr, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 267th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
The 9 muds listed also follow the spec correctly


9 Muds follow your spec. Ok. Want a cookie?

If you want to call us pathetic (us being the FUSS Project, which would be one of the first places to have an actual MSSP snippet, and have it included in an officially released and maintained codebase) because we don't want to tear apart a core part of the codebase when there's a way to implement it without tearing apart said core piece. Then by all means. Call us pathetic for advancing the idea you put forth in a major codebase. For those who actually read the thread you link to, will notice, Samson and I have both asked about progress on the two patches people have been working on. A plaintext patch, and one that uses the telnet subnegotiation you seem so overly fond of. If stating that we won't rip apart the codebase's socket and telnet handling counts as talking smack, then I apologize. My goal is to maintain a codebase that is easy to work with. Telnet Subnegotiation doesn't fall under the category of easy to work with. The plaintext patch is getting serious consideration for inclusion in the FUSS bases. The only thing I can think of that you might consider talking smack, is where…
I said:
I followed the MSSP stuff for a while, until Scandum went "Elitist Prick" about not having the Telnet protocols memorized.

But..
Scandum said:
I guess an added benefit in that case is that muds with lousy programmers are automatically excluded.

In response to:
DavidHaley said:
The problem here is that you think that everybody will find subneg to be easy, because things like MCCP are commonplace. The only reason those things are commonplace is that somebody snippetized them or added them to stock codebases. The average MUD coder is probably not very good at all with subneg, or even networking in general.

I still haven't seen a compelling reason to make this use subneg. The idea of autopopulating a client's connection manager seems rather weak, and besides, the exact same thing could be accomplished using the plain ol' text method.

I think that counts as Elitist, and it was a pretty prick-like thing to say. Not everyone here maintains a client, or has formal training in coding. Not everyone here is a programmer by trade, most people here are merely hobbyist, who have learned what they know by playing with these bases. Expecting everyone to memorize and know how to effectively work with any part of the telnet protocol aside from what is commonplace in the mud (discounting anything that has been snippetized) is absurd, and most assuredly elitist.

If we're being girlie, by choosing something that is easier for new coders to understand, then so be it. I'll happily let you call me girlie. Because I want people to adopt something, not be discouraged when they have to read multiple RFC's and probably books on programming and networking to understand what something is doing. If you want something to be adopted, you have to accept what you want will not always be what the community wants.

You're going to have to face the music. The community is going to win out in the end, because they're going to go with what's easier to understand and implement over something difficult. So you be happy with your 9 people. And I'll happily throw my hat in with the plain text because that means that I don't have to rewrite telnet handling on top of traps and affects for SmaugFUSS.
14 Apr, 2009, kiasyn wrote in the 268th comment:
Votes: 0
This is ridiculous.
14 Apr, 2009, Hanaisse wrote in the 269th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Needless to say that people who gave useful constructive criticism have seen their suggestions added instantly.


There's still an open thread of (IMHO) a perfectly viable suggestion regarding existing information displayed on mud listing sites.

http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topi...

If you don't want to add it, that's fine, however it could have at least been commented on. I was just trying to be helpful.

I think I've had enough of watching this kindergarten playground drama unfold here. As it stands right now I'm not sold on MSSP and will probably not be implementing it on my mud when it comes time to advertise. It doesn't meet my needs. I'll gladly spend the 5 minutes to manually input on listing sites. No offense intended. Good luck.
14 Apr, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 270th comment:
Votes: 0
Synopsis:

Scandum comes up with a very good idea for a protocol allowing muds to provide their own real-time data to mud listing sites.
Scandum provides a partial implementation and draft for said protocol, asking for input.
Community responds with critiques of the implementation, suggestions for the protocol, and concerns about security and flexibility.
Scandum replies that community is full of stupid people who just don't understand what he's offering.
Community and Scandum bounce insults back and forth.
Scandum accepts a few small suggestions to modify some aspects of the data presentation, ignoring other input and handwaving aside concerns.
Despite discontent with the current state, MudBytes works to implement the protocol as a testbed.
Cratylus grows frustrated enough with Scandum's brick wall that he forks a new version of the protocol which is more easily implemented.
Development has reached a stalemate, where both versions appear to be functional but unpolished.
Current discussion has degenerated into drama.
Occam's Razor suggests the plain-text version will win, and the refusal of Scandum to allow the community to shape MSSP to their needs also suggests this.

Did I miss anything?
14 Apr, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 271st comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno wrote a snippet for Smaug and you aren't implementing it, because you want plain text because it would be easier to write, but you haven't written it yet?
Hmm… confused.
14 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 272nd comment:
Votes: 0
Someone hasn't read the thread I see. Keberus is writing the other one to support plain text, which will be what we do implement. I mean, that is, assuming you can simply wait for the guy to do it. These things don't need to be rush jobbed in 3 hours to satisfy the 12 year old internet mentality.
14 Apr, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 273rd comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
to satisfy the 12 year old internet mentality.

Do you mean an internet mentality that's 12 years old, or an internet mentality of a 12 year old? Your grammar is particularly ambiguous, and both have multiple meanings that are similar and different to one another.
14 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 274th comment:
Votes: 0
I think what he meant is actually pretty obvious in this case :wink:
EDIT: but just to be clear, since you asked, he's referring to immaturity.
EDITx2: ninja'd
14 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 275th comment:
Votes: 0
Well then allow me to rephrase: The 12 year old mentality of internet users. Though I suspect plenty of folks probably got that right off anyway.
14 Apr, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 276th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
The 12 year old mentality of internet users.

…alright, I'll bite: Do you mean that their mentality is that of a 12 year old or that their mentality is 12 years old?

David Haley said:
I think what he meant is actually pretty obvious in this case
EDIT: but just to be clear, since you asked, he's referring to immaturity.

If I wanted you to clarify what he meant for him, I'd skip the annoying task of asking him questions and just ask you instead.
14 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 277th comment:
Votes: 0
Well then my good sir! If I'd thought you were asking a private question, I'd have expected you to send it via PM. :rolleyes:
14 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 278th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Samson said:
The 12 year old mentality of internet users.

…alright, I'll bite: Do you mean that their mentality is that of a 12 year old or that their mentality is 12 years old?


I mean 12 years old as in they're acting like spoiled 12 year old children who have no patience.

Honestly, I can't tell if you're seriously asking or just trolling yourself.
14 Apr, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 279th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
I mean 12 years old as in they're acting like spoiled 12 year old children who have no patience.

Honestly, I can't tell if you're seriously asking or just trolling yourself.

Yes, I was asking you in complete seriousness. As I said, the wording was ambiguous and had multiple possible meanings; I felt that I had to know for sure which one it was. Anyhow, thank you for clarifying.
14 Apr, 2009, Davion wrote in the 280th comment:
Votes: 0
Ok! So! Wow :P One little post leads to 3 more pages. Eek ;). So, to put your minds at ease, don't freak out! I'm simply adding -support- for it in the Mud List. This isn't a mandatory thing at all (it really was an april fools joke :P). The variables we'll be supporting are written in the MSSP_Fields article on this site. As for which style of communication, ATM, our bot only uses the telnet negotiation style, and seeing as I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to ruby, it'll remain that way till you guys pester Kiasyn to do it ;). But so far, after reading over the variables, I'm quite happy with the ones that have shown up. It will give a very good representation of what the game is at a glance. As for snippets and all that, they'll come. Right now, we need some incentive for people to pick up MSSP, and I'm sick of waiting to see if the chicken or the egg will come first.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this into a huge war or anything; this is supposed to help the community, not segregate it more :S. Besides, really, the way the crawler and the variables work, anyone can add their own variables with their own values, by simply adding to their implementation of MSSP, we don't ignore variables that aren't on our list. I'd say, consider the fields listed to be a guideline to get the process started, no reason to be required to stick to a set list of variables/values when it's in such an open format.
260.0/292