18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
How important is immortal conduct to you when playing a game? Also, If you could explain your choice that'd be awesome. I'm just trying to get a feeling for players in the community.

Maybe a little clarification is in order… Hmm.

Let's pose a couple hypotheticals.

1.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is being a complete ass for reasons unknown to the players. And said reason is entirely unrelated to the mud on which players are being punished on. Is this okay?

2.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is handing out ultimatums because they find out their players have been helping out with another MUD that's in development.

3.) An Immortal/MUD Owner hands out indiscriminate bans simply because they don't agree with something the banned individual says.

I'm sure you get the general idea now, at least I hope so, because I'm finding it hard to come up with any other hypothetical situations at the moment. But anyway, how important is all of this when choosing a mud to play? How important is it when choosing to remain on a mud if something like any of this happens or starts happening?
18 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I would say that it's very important insofar as it affects players' experience on the game. Being an idiot but making a good game is ok, as long as that doesn't mean doing unfair/bad things to players. For example, if the imm in question is completely insufferable but that stays constrained to interactions with other imms, well, that's an issue for the staff to decide.

Basically, if an imm is driving players away, I think that's pretty unambiguously a bad thing – assuming of course that the players themselves weren't being stupid in the first place.

In general, as with any site or community, the actions of the admins set the tone to some extent, so it's important for imms to show a good example of appropriate conduct. If the imms don't behave, why should the players? (Well, until they get banned, I suppose…)
18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Hrm.. 5 votes.. 1 reply.. Come on, none of this is very informative people.. I was trying to learn something not have some statistics. :P
18 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Let's pose a couple hypotheticals.

On the surface your hypothetical scenarios seem to indicate poor conduct, but I don't believe that's necessarily the case - I believe it can sometimes be a matter of perspective. Allow me to demonstrate.

Kayle said:
1.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is being a complete ass for reasons unknown to the players. And said reason is entirely unrelated to the mud on which players are being punished on. Is this okay?

On one occasion I accidently introduced a bug that allowed people to easily obtain a certain magic item that they shouldn't have had access to. The item needed to be removed for balance purposes, and although I gave the players plenty of warning (and the game is still in beta testing), one of them claimed not to know about it - he was very angry about being "punished" by the removal of the item for a reason he wasn't aware of. I suppose that's not quite the same, as it is related to the mud, but it's still similar…

Kayle said:
2.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is handing out ultimatums because they find out their players have been helping out with another MUD that's in development.

I once handed out an ultimatum to a player who was helping out another mud - they set up a bot to repeatedly spam the public channels with adverts for their own mud. Does that count?

Kayle said:
3.) An Immortal/MUD Owner hands out indiscriminate bans simply because they don't agree with something the banned individual says.

Not a 'ban', but I can think of two people I've silenced for what they've said. The first for setting up a trigger to welcome newbies by telling them that the mud sucked and that they should play somewhere else, and the second for refusing to take his racist comments to the unmoderated channel (the silence didn't block him from that channel).

David Haley said:
Basically, if an imm is driving players away, I think that's pretty unambiguously a bad thing – assuming of course that the players themselves weren't being stupid in the first place.

A more cynical viewpoint is that any change to the game will upset someone, and therefore practically any imm who makes an impact on the mud will drive players away. It might be more reasonable to argue that any imm who drives away more players than s/he attracts is a bad thing. But of course then you could say that any imm who's main responsibility is rule enforcement is a bad thing ;)
18 Sep, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
A more cynical viewpoint is that any change to the game will upset someone, and therefore practically any imm who makes an impact on the mud will drive players away. It might be more reasonable to argue that any imm who drives away more players than s/he attracts is a bad thing. But of course then you could say that any imm who's main responsibility is rule enforcement is a bad thing ;)

Yes, you're correct; it's a hard thing to express. I wasn't meaning to imply that imms had to make everybody happy. I was meaning to imply that if an imm's conduct (as opposed to the team's game-design decision-making process) is driving people away, then there might be a problem there.

And yes, being the 'enforcer' is not necessarily the most pleasant job to have. You need a combination of many traits, most of which are hard enough to consistently apply in isolation, let alone all at the same time.
18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Those are all valid points, KaVir. I guess what I meant with my hypotheticals was that there was no reason to do any of the stuff in said hypothetical scenarios. Or that the reasons didn't pertain in any way to the game itself, but things happening outside the game.
18 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
I guess what I meant with my hypotheticals was that there was no reason to do any of the stuff in said hypothetical scenarios.

Ah, but there's always a reason ;) My post was mostly a devil's advocate, but the point I was trying to make is that there are always two sides to every story. Sometimes an admin has to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of the mud.

Of course that's certainly no excuse for poor conduct. But I do think the admin should be given the opportunity to explain their decisions before being judged.
18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Kayle said:
I guess what I meant with my hypotheticals was that there was no reason to do any of the stuff in said hypothetical scenarios.

Ah, but there's always a reason ;) My post was mostly a devil's advocate, but the point I was trying to make is that there are always two sides to every story. Sometimes an admin has to make unpopular decisions for the greater good of the mud.

Of course that's certainly no excuse for poor conduct. But I do think the admin should be given the opportunity to explain their decisions before being judged.


Hmm. Good point. But if the reason for doing it doesn't even pertain to the game itself, or for anything occurring in the game, is it acceptable or is it just poor conduct?
18 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
But if the reason for doing it doesn't even pertain to the game itself, or for anything occurring in the game, is it acceptable or is it just poor conduct?

As I said, it depends on the reason. I recall a very heated discussion on usenet many years ago, involving a player who admitted using muds to "meet" underaged girls (I believe went on to meet at least one of them in real life as well, and by "meet" I don't just mean have a friendly chat). If I'd found he was playing on my mud, I would certainly have banned him.
18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm. I'd ban him too…
18 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
What about a player who had a reputation for making DoS attacks against muds he played whenever he got angry about being PKed, badmouthed, etc?

Or a rich player who had taken legal action against the owners of previous muds he'd played for various silly reasons (but still causing serious problems for the mud owners)?

Or a player who you knew was actually a rival mud owner, had no intention of actually playing, and was only there to disrupt your game in any way possible?
18 Sep, 2009, Hyper_Eye wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
How important is immortal conduct to you when playing a game? Also, If you could explain your choice that'd be awesome. I'm just trying to get a feeling for players in the community.

Maybe a little clarification is in order… Hmm.

Let's pose a couple hypotheticals.

1.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is being a complete ass for reasons unknown to the players. And said reason is entirely unrelated to the mud on which players are being punished on. Is this okay?

2.) An Immortal/MUD Owner is handing out ultimatums because they find out their players have been helping out with another MUD that's in development.

3.) An Immortal/MUD Owner hands out indiscriminate bans simply because they don't agree with something the banned individual says.

I'm sure you get the general idea now, at least I hope so, because I'm finding it hard to come up with any other hypothetical situations at the moment. But anyway, how important is all of this when choosing a mud to play? How important is it when choosing to remain on a mud if something like any of this happens or starts happening?


I have been a MUD owner for a long time but I am going to offer an opinion anyway.

1) Of course this isn't ok. That imm would be a jerk.

2) Nobody owns the players. They can play wherever they want and on however many MUDs they want. They are different games. Why would you be upset about players enjoying other MUDs? The only way that I would see this being a problem is if the player actively advertises or recruits players from your MUD to that MUD. That isn't right.

3) Refer to answer #1.

The bottom line is that you are describing an imm that doesn't see their MUD for what it is… a game. With the state of the MUD community right now they are lucky they have players actually using their content. What the players do outside their game isn't their business and if they want any players in their game they won't unfairly punish players. It is my opinion that imms should only interfere with players when they break rules, negatively affect the game by gaining an unfair advantage or taking advantage of exploits, or need help that is within the rules. The rules themselves should be rules that keep the order within the game. A MUDs rules should never dictate what a player does outside of the game. That is nobody's business. MUDs are more successful and more enjoyable when imms realize their roles to be one of creating and maintaining their game and ensuring the game runs properly. When imms consider themselves to be authorities over the players they are delusional and destined to fail. Just my two cents.
18 Sep, 2009, Davion wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
18 Sep, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
What about a player who had a reputation for making DoS attacks against muds he played whenever he got angry about being PKed, badmouthed, etc?

First time he tries to DoS my mud, legal action would be on the horizon. Especially if it was for something as retarded as being PK'd or trashtalked.

KaVir said:
Or a rich player who had taken legal action against the owners of previous muds he'd played for various silly reasons (but still causing serious problems for the mud owners)?

Lol. Sorry. That's funny. If they have enough money to randomly sue people for stupid reasons… Well, more power to them. I'm not even sure how I would deal with this one. That's just (forgive the pun) rich.

KaVir said:
Or a player who you knew was actually a rival mud owner, had no intention of actually playing, and was only there to disrupt your game in any way possible?

On this note, I wouldn't care who they were. Disruptions to the game are clearly laid out in the rules, and punishments for them will be listed. If said owner disrupts my game, they get dealt with according to the rules. Simple.


Hyper_Eye said:
I have been a MUD owner for a long time but I am going to offer an opinion anyway.

1) Of course this isn't ok. That imm would be a jerk.

2) Nobody owns the players. They can play wherever they want and on however many MUDs they want. They are different games. Why would you be upset about players enjoying other MUDs? The only way that I would see this being a problem is if the player actively advertises or recruits players from your MUD to that MUD. That isn't right.

3) Refer to answer #1.

The bottom line is that you are describing an imm that doesn't see their MUD for what it is… a game. With the state of the MUD community right now they are lucky they have players actually using their content. What the players do outside their game isn't their business and if they want any players in their game they won't unfairly punish players. It is my opinion that imms should only interfere with players when they break rules, negatively affect the game by gaining an unfair advantage or taking advantage of exploits, or need help that is within the rules. The rules themselves should be rules that keep the order within the game. A MUDs rules should never dictate what a player does outside of the game. That is nobody's business. MUDs are more successful and more enjoyable when imms realize their roles to be one of creating and maintaining their game and ensuring the game runs properly. When imms consider themselves to be authorities over the players they are delusional and destined to fail. Just my two cents.


Agreed. 100%
18 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Hyper_Eye said:
A MUDs rules should never dictate what a player does outside of the game. That is nobody's business.

What if one of my players decides to promote my mud by spamming other muds with adverts? Is that not my business? Should I just shrug my shoulders and say "not my problem" when those other mud owners complain?

What if one of my players is making highly offensive (racist/sexist/etc) posts on various mud forums, and associating himself with my mud in a way that might imply he's speaking on behalf of my mud? Maybe he's even actively pretending to be a member of staff. Is it not my business when someone is damaging the reputation of my mud?

What if one of my players is selling information/equipment/characters via his website? Is that not my business? Even if it's in direct violation of the terms of service the player agreed to when they started playing?
19 Sep, 2009, Hyper_Eye wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Hyper_Eye said:
A MUDs rules should never dictate what a player does outside of the game. That is nobody's business.

What if one of my players decides to promote my mud by spamming other muds with adverts? Is that not my business? Should I just shrug my shoulders and say "not my problem" when those other mud owners complain?

What if one of my players is making highly offensive (racist/sexist/etc) posts on various mud forums, and associating himself with my mud in a way that might imply he's speaking on behalf of my mud? Maybe he's even actively pretending to be a member of staff. Is it not my business when someone is damaging the reputation of my mud?

What if one of my players is selling information/equipment/characters via his website? Is that not my business? Even if it's in direct violation of the terms of service the player agreed to when they started playing?


I think you took that quote much too literally. I am pretty sure you know that as well. All of those things you mentioned are disruptive to your MUD because it causes consequences for your MUD. I never said throw all judgement out the window. What I meant by that statement was that it shouldn't be a MUD admins concern if a player likes to play somewhere else, has hobby's or frequents websites that the admins disagree with, likes to cross-dress and spank monkeys, or anything that a player wants to do that doesn't have a negative consequence on the admins MUD. An admin should use good judgement in ensuring the smooth operation of their game and not allow personal emotion and opinion to decide administrative actions.
19 Sep, 2009, Hyper_Eye wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Kayle said:
But if the reason for doing it doesn't even pertain to the game itself, or for anything occurring in the game, is it acceptable or is it just poor conduct?

As I said, it depends on the reason. I recall a very heated discussion on usenet many years ago, involving a player who admitted using muds to "meet" underaged girls (I believe went on to meet at least one of them in real life as well, and by "meet" I don't just mean have a friendly chat). If I'd found he was playing on my mud, I would certainly have banned him.


Are you referring to a player that went by the name "Alucard" and ran a Final Fantasy themed MUD? If so he is in prison with a 10 year sentence. An imm named Alucard played a very important role in the history of my MUD, including building a lot of content and adding a lot of code, but these are not the same guys (for those that know the Alucard who worked for many years on my MUD.) The mans name is Joshua Clay. Here are some relevant articles:

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/9764488/det...
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/03/...

This is a risk that is impossible to eliminate but I understand what you are saying. This, again, goes to judgement. I would consider a player that admits to meeting underage girls on my MUD for illegal purposes to be a disruption to my MUD.
19 Sep, 2009, Lyanic wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
In response to the original question that was posed, it is my opinion that the conduct of administrators is extremely important. I'd go so far as to say that administrator conduct constitutes at least 50% of the criteria on which a MUD is judged by both new players and the community as a whole. Seriously, how many MUDs can each of you think of that you have a negative opinion of based solely on the poor conduct of one or more of its administrators (either in-game or on community fora)? Of course, there is also the question of what constitutes poor conduct. I won't even attempt to delve into specifics on that, but it usually comes down to good judgement and professionalism. The good judgement part is highly subjective, but I basically agree with most of the examples given by other posters in this thread. Hopefully everyone else agrees that a lack of either good judgement or professionalism would constitute poor conduct?

As an addendum, I'd like to propose a cease and desist on using the terms 'imm' (short for 'immortal') and 'administrator' as synonyms. I realize that it has become common practice to do so, but I honestly believe it's part of the problem with poor conduct amongst certain people who run MUDs. I'll attempt to explain why. I see the role of an 'immortal' from a roleplaying perspective - in that he or she is a God/Goddess/etc of the world, intended to bridge the divide between players and the people running the game without breaking the fourth wall too much. I see the role of an 'administrator' as someone who develops the game and/or assists players in an out-of-character fashion to help ensure their enjoyment of the game (this is probably a loose definition that could use some modifying). I'm not saying that a single person can't have both roles, nor am I saying that there is no gray area between them. I'm just saying that it's advisable to recognize which hat you're wearing.

The problem comes in when new MUD owners (especially the younger and more emotionally volatile ones) fail to recognize the above distinction and overuse the term 'immortal' for their roles in-game. These are generally the people who are already most prone to a lack of good judgement and professionalism, but when they become labeled with a term that signifies such power, it tends to come with a sense of entitlement to act however they want, without regard for the well being of the game or its players. Given that these individuals would likely still show poor conduct regardless of the term used for their roles, it would seem unfair to make any connection to the term itself. After all, a word is just an arbitrary label used to categorize something, right? Except, that's not how our brains work.

As more and more players grow up (or grow old) playing MUDs, and many times go on to start their own, they recognize distinctions, consciously or subconsciously, between the behaviors of people who run the games they have played who were labeled as 'immortals' and those who were labeled as 'administrators'. That distinction leads to a separate categorization for each term and influences the behavior that an individual expects from someone labeled as an 'immortal' versus someone labeled as an 'administrator'. If you spent all your time playing on MUDs where the person in charge was labeled as an 'immortal' and exhibited poor conduct, you would begin to assume that this was how an 'immortal' is supposed to conduct himself or herself. If you then start your own MUD and label yourself as an 'immortal', you're likely to conduct yourself based on learned expectations. After a while, it begins to have a segregating effect within subsections of the community, where some players learn to despise anyone labeled as an 'immortal' and others just help continue the cycle. I hold up DBZ and Godwars games as shining examples of this phenomenon. Feel free to flame me over this…

Anyway, sorry for the rant/threadjack. The poll title and terminology in some of the posts just hit a raw nerve for me.
19 Sep, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Hyper_Eye said:
I think you took that quote much too literally.

In this thread I've been trying to argue against generalisations, pointing out that there are two sides to every story, and recommending against jumping to conclusions. Words like "never" make the issue seem black and white, but it really isn't - there are many things a player can do outside the mud that still impact the mud, and those actions are the business of the mud owner.

Hyper_Eye said:
An admin should use good judgement in ensuring the smooth operation of their game and not allow personal emotion and opinion to decide administrative actions.

Exactly, and that's a much better way of phrasing it.

Hyper_Eye said:
Are you referring to a player that went by the name "Alucard" and ran a Final Fantasy themed MUD?

No, I'm referring to Scott "Shade" Guzman. I can't imagine many muds wanting an active player like that.
19 Sep, 2009, ATT_Turan wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
To address the question in the poll, Kayle, I have to start with saying that I'm not sure how good a sample you're getting here - most of the posters and frequent readers of MudBytes are developers of their own games, not just players. While we all agree that the examples of poor behavior you created are not acceptable in an admin under general circumstances (I'm not trying to contradict any of KaVir's very accurate counterpoints), the real question that you wanted answered is how important that behavior is to players.

I would refer you to TMC's nigh-weekly posts by miscellaneous people who basically say, "The head imp on ThisMUD is a total jerk-hole-face-wad, but I still play there." I've seen those with enough frequency and similarity to posit that the average player gets attached to a particular game and the other people he's playing with, and that is more influential on their decisions than the behavior of a single admin. I'm not sure how well I understand this - personally, I'd get the e-mails of everyone I enjoyed playing with and say let's find a new MUD as a group, but that does not appear to be what usually happens.

I voted very important.
0.0/32