25 Jun, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Furthermore, if you never play your own mud, you will never understand it from the players perspective - so how are you going to make sure it's fun to play? And if your game isn't fun, why would anyone else want to play it?


To be fair, admins who don't play their own games suck.

Just saying.
25 Jun, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Oliver said:
KaVir said:
Furthermore, if you never play your own mud, you will never understand it from the players perspective - so how are you going to make sure it's fun to play? And if your game isn't fun, why would anyone else want to play it?


To be fair, admins who don't play their own games suck.

Just saying.

I'm not sure what you're replying to here; it sounds like you're agreeing with KaVir but you've structured your statement as a disagreement, so perhaps I've misunderstood…
25 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Oliver said:
KaVir said:
Furthermore, if you never play your own mud, you will never understand it from the players perspective - so how are you going to make sure it's fun to play? And if your game isn't fun, why would anyone else want to play it?


To be fair, admins who don't play their own games suck.

Just saying.

I'm not sure what you're replying to here; it sounds like you're agreeing with KaVir but you've structured your statement as a disagreement, so perhaps I've misunderstood…

I'm not sure I understand anything about either quotation.

That an administrator does not play their game and thinks it is fun, does not mean it is not fun. That an administrator does play their game and thinks it is fun, does not mean it is fun. That someone thinks that stating an administrator who does not play their game sucks is in the interests of fairness, does not mean that someone understands the notion of fairness.

Is there one definition of fun that all share? Can fun be understood by someone who merely observes it, but does not participate? Can the perspective of what is actually fun be lost by someone who participates rather than observing? Is someone who states reasoning based on a logical fallacy necessarily wrong?

There are too many beliefs in this world that are trotted out as absolute, like the old chestnut of administrators not playing their game meaning something. If people really believed it, then shouldn't they be out there making sure that sites that index playable MUDs filter out those that have non-playing administrators? Wouldn't that be in the best interests of us all, what with there being less players and it being beneficial for new ones to encounter fun MUDs?
26 Jun, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
donky said:
That an administrator does play their game and thinks it is fun, does not mean it is fun. That someone thinks that stating an administrator who does not play their game sucks is in the interests of fairness, does not mean that someone understands the notion of fairness.


No, actually, I'm pretty sure about this one. An administrator is the developer of a game. If a developer is not testing out his own game, there's a problem. Players don't understand the game from the perspective of the developer, so they aren't flawless playtesters. Additionally, an admin who doesn't test his game doesn't understand the game from the perspective of the players, so he isn't a flawless admin.

Edit: Whoops @ quoteboxes and added a sentence.
26 Jun, 2010, donky wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Oliver said:
No, actually, I'm pretty sure about this one. An administrator is the developer of a game. If a developer is not testing out his own game, there's a problem. Players don't understand the game from the perspective of the developer, so they aren't flawless playtesters. Additionally, an admin who doesn't test his game doesn't understand the game from the perspective of the players, so he isn't a flawless admin.

There is a huge difference in potential meaning between "play" and "test". And the confusion is increased because there are actually those who claim that developers need to really play the game (like a player, not just test) in order for it to be fun. Whether we agree or not is still unclear, because I suspect but do not know for sure that you consider test to mean play.
26 Jun, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
donky said:
Oliver said:
No, actually, I'm pretty sure about this one. An administrator is the developer of a game. If a developer is not testing out his own game, there's a problem. Players don't understand the game from the perspective of the developer, so they aren't flawless playtesters. Additionally, an admin who doesn't test his game doesn't understand the game from the perspective of the players, so he isn't a flawless admin.

There is a huge difference in potential meaning between "play" and "test". And the confusion is increased because there are actually those who claim that developers need to really play the game (like a player, not just test) in order for it to be fun. Whether we agree or not is still unclear, because I suspect but do not know for sure that you consider test to mean play.


There is no way to accurately test a MUD without playing the MUD. As the feature you intend to test is "how playing the game works," testing it requires… playing the game.
26 Jun, 2010, Koron wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
It actually is possible to find non-admin playtesters who are good at finding bugs (and possibly helping with solutions), so I don't understand the assumption that "normal" players somehow can't test new features properly. It would be foolish at best to implement something and then pretend that it's going to work 100% properly the first time without ever needing to be tweaked, but you don't necessarily have to play your own mortal character forty hours a week to do this. We run a test port where we do most of our changes, and they only get ported over after the necessary modifications are made. (If this isn't standard practice, it should be.) As nice as this is, if you think any not-for-pay, I've-got-a-real-job admin has the time to singlehandedly test every possible iteration of every single change, you're right crazy. There's no way to accurately test/tweak your changes without using them. Your mud must be played to be tested, sure, but you don't have to do all of the work yourself.

What were we talking about again? :robot:
26 Jun, 2010, bbailey wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Oliver said:
donky said:
Oliver said:
No, actually, I'm pretty sure about this one. An administrator is the developer of a game. If a developer is not testing out his own game, there's a problem. Players don't understand the game from the perspective of the developer, so they aren't flawless playtesters. Additionally, an admin who doesn't test his game doesn't understand the game from the perspective of the players, so he isn't a flawless admin.

There is a huge difference in potential meaning between "play" and "test". And the confusion is increased because there are actually those who claim that developers need to really play the game (like a player, not just test) in order for it to be fun. Whether we agree or not is still unclear, because I suspect but do not know for sure that you consider test to mean play.


There is no way to accurately test a MUD without playing the MUD. As the feature you intend to test is "how playing the game works," testing it requires… playing the game.


Hmm. I agree that developers should test as much of the game as possible (usually by 'playing the game', though there is also much testing to be done behind the scenes). The main issue I've run into with developer testing is that its usefulness is limited due to many developers' (myself included) natural tendencies to test their own expectations, which doesn't cover the many ways 'real' players find to use the features in unintended or unanticipated ways. Players tend to do a much better job of 'playing the game'.
27 Aug, 2010, Nyro wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
In my opinion, Admins should not play their own games. After all, admins are still human beings and thus prone to temptation. And even if they do manage to stay clear of any wrongdoing, any-time a player get's cheated out of something he'll blame it on the character being an administrator character, even if it isn't.
27 Aug, 2010, Ben wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
A lot of dealers don't do their own product.
27 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Nyro said:
In my opinion, Admins should not play their own games. After all, admins are still human beings and thus prone to temptation.

They should probably be sitebanned as well. Just in case they give in to temptation and try to create a character.
27 Aug, 2010, Xrakisis wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with oliver. I code about half the time and play the other half. On cotn 4.3 i have 5 maxed alts, and it takes 10-15 hours to max. But like Koron said about a job. I dont have one :P
27 Aug, 2010, Chris Bailey wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
In my opinion, Admins should not play their own games. After all, admins are still human beings and thus prone to temptation. And even if they do manage to stay clear of any wrongdoing, any-time a player get's cheated out of something he'll blame it on the character being an administrator character, even if it isn't.


?

Don't tell anyone?
27 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Do not play a game where the admin is a known cheater…? (it is VERY easy to know in a fight)
The only thing I accept from an admin is that he can use his power to compensate for the time he uses to admin/code.
IE: only get what any player can get with time.

And it helps when there is a 'limit' in what time can give.
My mud have the simplest way to deal with that: Even the most powerful char can get trumped if he is ganged up by three chars or more. And he will lose stats/eq when he dies, actually redistributing his time used to more astute players.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no way for a player to detect if a player is an admin or not if the admin plays fair anyway.
27 Aug, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah. I think the clear solution is that IMMs play their own games with a modicum of subtlety. Just because you are the admin of your MUD doesn't mean you have to title your character ADMIN'S ALT or run around shouting out who you are.

Lots of people, especially on roleplay games, prefer not to even know who another player's alt is. I tend not to be one of those people (while I play roleplay games regularly, I also like to associate with the real people), it's perfectly legitimate on a lot of games not to reveal your alts.
27 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Eventually people figure out your alts, and then some whiny person starts with the "He's an immortal, he cheated!" So I just let it be known. Easier in the long run.
27 Aug, 2010, Oliver wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Eventually people figure out your alts, and then some whiny person starts with the "He's an immortal, he cheated!" So I just let it be known. Easier in the long run.


I'd say you should just let it run its course. If people guess, so be it. If not, then let it be.
28 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
We allowed staff to have known nonstaff characters. I actually kept mine secret and it was never an issue.

I think if you're worried about perceived cheating that is fair. But if you're worried about actual cheating in spite of having proper precautions and the character screening it should require then I have to say you have other problems.

We had an issue with a staff member being accused of cheating. We had the means of ensuring the accusation was meritless.

The real perceived issues come from staff enjoying the game too much. Successful players who are staff members always inspire doubt.

The truth is if you hide mechanics from players staff members do have the benefit of having hidden mechanics exposed to them. My solution was ensuring statistics and numbers behind semantics were exposed. We also had the policy of clarifying and exposing more to players any time it was brought to our attention. For example load percentages for items.
28 Aug, 2010, Koron wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Eventually people figure out your alts, and then some whiny person starts with the "He's an immortal, he cheated!" So I just let it be known. Easier in the long run.

Yep. After many years of trial and error, this is the conclusion I've arrived at; all my mortals are clearly identifiable as alts of mine. I also get around the [making players hate you/accuse you of cheating/whatever] thing by abiding by a general policy to not be a dick to anyone*. I find this very nicely allows me to avoid many of life's little troubles. Sure, sometimes you just want to be a dick to someone, but I find that the Internet offers a great many options for which I can express my asshole side without ruining my players' day (and ultimately my own as I have found that when people do not like their mud admins, they often find new muds).
Honestly, all player concerns I've run across can be handily put to rest by being a stand up guy. :tongue:


*(Caveat: If someone really deserves it, I have no problem being a dick to this person, but this often goes hand in hand with official "punishment." Since I'm not a fan of authoritarian administration, this most likely means the individual in question has been regularly intentionally disruptive.)
28 Aug, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Nyro said:
In my opinion, Admins should not play their own games. After all, admins are still human beings and thus prone to temptation.

They should probably be sitebanned as well. Just in case they give in to temptation and try to create a character.

That's a very sensible suggestion. I think this leads back to the argument whether a girl wearing a short skirt brings it upon herself when she gets raped. If you analyze it further you'll see why it's perfectly fine to kill someone in a fictional fight on tv, but censorship worthy when someone says fuck, as that which leads toward sin is a much bigger perceived thread than the actual sin itself.

And the ultimate question, is it really a bad thing when admins cheat?
0.0/145