25 Mar, 2010, Idealiad wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Not sure if this will get cross-posted here:

http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/mud-co...

Also, if crat could say here in English what he said at TMC, I'm curious.
25 Mar, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I invited him to eat shit.
25 Mar, 2010, Runter wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm guessing this is related to something that happened on a board that isn't public readable?

I don't really understand why we'd cross post something like that here other than to stir up trouble…
25 Mar, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I think the stated concept ("sharing our knowledge, and increasing the player experience on all our games through group effort") has merit, although the rest of the post gives a somewhat conflicting message (closed forums, email your qualifications to the IRE admin to apply for membership). I think I'll reserve judgement for the time being though.
25 Mar, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Although I really dislike standards that are half-baked and made with only a small subsection of the world-to-be-standardized in mind, I also, frankly, have relatively little desire to be involved in Yet Another Standards Debate. They're tiresome and often boring. The difference this time is that major client developers are involved, and so whatever decisions made are extremely likely to actually be put into practice, for better or for worse. So, here's to hoping they come up with something useful.
25 Mar, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
The mere mention of community effort rekindles some good old memories.
25 Mar, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
The mere mention of community effort rekindles some good old memories.


Oh? Were you part of a community effort?
25 Mar, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, and to my dismay it didn't differ all that much from joining a cult.
25 Mar, 2010, donky wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Closed forums just seem.. well.. disingenuous, in this day and age. I can't remember seeing any in recent years that mattered.
25 Mar, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Well the Wiki lists five protocols, two of which are known to be broken, MXP and MSP.
As far as closed forums, I believe IRE's last community outreach effort was a closed forum as well.
*shrug*
25 Mar, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
A closed forum, used to discuss "standards" that can only be discussed by a closed committee, hand-selected from a set of applicants so that the potential set of ideas or disagreements is kept to a minimum…

Are they designing C++?
25 Mar, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
The difference this time is that major client developers are involved, and so whatever decisions made are extremely likely to actually be put into practice, for better or for worse.

That's my view, too, and is the reason I've signed up. I want to see what's happening, as it may well have an impact on me.

Tyche said:
As far as closed forums, I believe IRE's last community outreach effort was a closed forum as well. *shrug*

Was that the commercial mud "boys club" thing? If so, they didn't really have any influence over anyone else, so they could just be ignored. In this case we've got major client developers involved, and if they start changing their protocols it could impact a lot of muds.

I'm hoping the closed nature of the forum will just be a temporary thing.
25 Mar, 2010, Twisol wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Nick and Jeremy have both mentioned that the closed nature of the board has been brought up there as well, so hopefully we'll see them open up soon. I can understand why they want the wiki to be read-only in general, but the forums should certainly be public.

Tyche said:
Well the Wiki lists five protocols, two of which are known to be broken, MXP and MSP.

Now, that's not fair. Isn't fixing stuff like that and proposing alternatives sort of the point?
25 Mar, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Twisol said:
Tyche said:
Well the Wiki lists five protocols, two of which are known to be broken, MXP and MSP.
Now, that's not fair. Isn't fixing stuff like that and proposing alternatives sort of the point?

I don't follow. What isn't fair?
25 Mar, 2010, Twisol wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Twisol said:
Tyche said:
Well the Wiki lists five protocols, two of which are known to be broken, MXP and MSP.
Now, that's not fair. Isn't fixing stuff like that and proposing alternatives sort of the point?

I don't follow. What isn't fair?

It was a tongue-in-cheek "not fair". You said that two of the protocols they list are broken. Maybe I misread the tone of text, but it sounded like you thought that was a point against them.
25 Mar, 2010, Twisol wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Nick Gammon said:
We seem to have reached agreement at this point for the forum to be read-only for everyone, and a writable "general" section. Once that is done (sometime today perhaps) you could always post your views about everything being writable (if you have such views) in the General section.
31 Mar, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I think the stated concept ("sharing our knowledge, and increasing the player experience on all our games through group effort") has merit, although the rest of the post gives a somewhat conflicting message (closed forums, email your qualifications to the IRE admin to apply for membership). I think I'll reserve judgement for the time being though.


I'm sorry to say that the "group effort", such as it is, is what I feared it would be.

Client devs with no practical experience with running or developing muds, determining
the path for protocols aimed at improving the marketability of IRE muds and Aardwolf.

I've even seen a major client dev openly state that clients he thinks are inferior should die.

Unless there's a radical uptick in the demonstrated good faith there, I'm afraid I'm
not going to grok what the point was of making a public show of that site,
other than, again, marketing commercial interests.

Looks so far like it was a waste of time.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
31 Mar, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
It's possible that we're still in the grandstanding phase: it's possible that the client dev you're referring to might come around given enough time and persuasion. (Then again, maybe not.)
31 Mar, 2010, Runter wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
It's possible that we're still in the grandstanding phase: it's possible that the client dev you're referring to might come around given enough time and persuasion. (Then again, maybe not.)


Grandstanding?

I move for a vote of no confidence in the leadership of this body! ;)
31 Mar, 2010, Dean wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
David Haley said:
It's possible that we're still in the grandstanding phase: it's possible that the client dev you're referring to might come around given enough time and persuasion. (Then again, maybe not.)


Grandstanding?


Grandstanding - To behave in such a way that makes people pay attention to you instead of thinking about more important matters.
0.0/31