Playing the devil's advocate here, I would say that Scandum does indeed have a stake in how the IMC2 network is or will be managed as, despite being currently uninvolved, he may wish to be involved at some future point in time. In that instance, voicing opposition now while the matter is still new would be more prudent than waiting until some later point by which the matter will have already been long since firmly cemented. There is, of course, also the matter of the IMC2 network being a Mudbytes community mechanism. For better or worse, Scandum is apart of this community and has a voice in matters pertaining to it; or so I would be led to believe, anyways.

If IMC2 is to be an entity in which functionally noninvolved parties, such as myself, do not have a say, then I would say that matters pertaining to it should be discussed solely upon the IMC2 network itself where said involved parties are actually found. Choosing to discuss the matter on the Mudbytes forum is inviting all members of said forum to speak their mind about it, whether they have an interest from your point of view or not.

MB is the forum where IMC matters are discussed; due to the nature of the IMC medium it makes no sense at all to discuss these matters on IMC.

People who have shown no interest whatsoever in IMC for years are likely to continue showing no interest in it. The point is not that he doesn't participate and therefore has zero say. The point here is that Scandum is arguing just to argue, and his utter lack of participation is extremely strong evidence of that. If he's actually worried about unfair rules, he can deal with occurrences (should there be any) in the normal fashion.

I must have missed the part where the OP said "What do you guys think about this?". Hehe!

This forum is called "IMC2 Support and Discussion", and the thread wasn't locked, which implies it is open to discussion.

Although I don't use IMC, I did once add IMC support to one of my codebases, and I've toyed with the idea of adding it to my current mud. Sadly I can say with some confidence that if it's possible for my mud to be banned from the IMC network due to poor player conduct, then at least one of my players will attempt to do exactly that. Thus my interest in how much impact a player can have.

The amount of participation you want from your MUD can be limited to just immortals (or probably even just one person). Actually, right now the only mortal participation is Discworld players playing Uno :)

I can't speak for IMC2, Kayle is perfectly able to do that. But I
run a different intermud network called Intermud-3 (aka i3) and the
problem you describe is not entirely unknown there.

The first line of defense is simply not giving players intermud
access. The i3 tradition is to have creators/builders/coder/staff
be the folks with automatic intermud channel access. On muds where
players do have access to i3 channels, typically they pay in-game
costs for it that make them disinclined to jeopardize their access.

There *are* some weirdo muds that give players access to i3
channels automatically. They have not caused problems thus far,
but if they did, the admin of the mud would be asked to limit
access to the troublemakers.

If the problem from that mud did not stop, the mud would probably
have access to that channel curtailed.

If it then caused problems on other channels, it would be addressed
on a per channel basis, and depending on how extreme the problem got,
I might consider banning the mud from all i3 systems, not just channels.

It's pretty rare tho. I think I've done that once or twice in the
three or so years I've been running things.

-Crazi
http://lpmuds.net/intermud.html

I'm not here just to argue, nice trolling Haley.

In the case of future participation I'm not interested in joining a network that will put pressure on me to have my players (or myself) talk in a political correct manner. And like kavir mentioned, if you're not babysitting your players there's little point in spending time adding support for a network that'll ban you if one of your players is naughty.

If the network is just for admins it's easier to run an imc client.

I guess you missed the part where it is explained that there is an "anything goes" channel.

Since you're not arguing just to argue, I'll assume you just have a hard time reading.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Player access to IMC2 is at the discretion of the individual MUDs on the network. If you fear your players may end up getting your game thrown off the network, don't provide them access to it. This is how the system has always worked, regardless of who is currently managing it. Even in the days when Ntanel would go out of his way to say no players were allowed, there was little he could do to stop it if admins chose to grant them the commands necessary to participate other than ban those games from the network. Your players can only get you into as much trouble as you allow them access to :)

It is only by tradition alone that players have for the most part not been participants on the network.

i'm just waiting for talon to get banned :P

Let's not call out that the sky is falling here, ok folks? It's not as if one or two bad players will cause an immediate ban of a MUD. It would be a problem if the admin were asked to do something about it and refused or failed to act within some reasonable delay. Be reasonable about this. The status quo really hasn't changed very much, if at all, so don't act as if the entire world has just turned upside down.

As for Talon, it might make sense to let IMC admins administer it as well if it's going to be the semi-official free MB access to the IMC network.

I've read the logs on occasion, and for sure, there's a lot of Christophobic brownneck bigots on IMC. But hell, I don't begrudge them a special place to socialize where they don't feel threatened.

I have absolutely no faith in the IMC administration.

I don't understand this. Isn't IMC administration Davion, Samson, and Kayle? What gives?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

It's Davion and Kayle. I have no administrative stake in how the network is run since handing Server02 over to Kayle.

I guess I just mean Kayle. But its mostly personal opinion I guess, and I don't want to get into it.

Well wtevr.

if you guys have personal private issues, maybe they should stay personal
and private.

In the meantime I'd like to see this thread stay on topic re: imc guidelines,
and I for one welcome a new era of people not having an excuse anymore.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

If it makes you feel any better Crat, I don't know what Kiasyn's problem with me is either. But back on topic.

Kavir: As has been stated, player participation on the network is entirely up to the Admin of the MUD in question. Steps would be taken, and any issues would be taken up with the owner/admin of the mud where the players were being unruly and they would be asked to do something about it. If said admin refused to do anything about it, step would then have to be taken by me or Davion to control the situation. An example, Not long ago, there was a player on one of the muds on the network causing problems. It was taken up with the admin of the game, and said admin, being a long time member of the network, handled it, and there was no further issue. The mud is still on the network, and still very much active.

The channels are run on a permissions based system, and you can only access specific channels with a particular level of permissions.


So, as you can see, there are only a specific set of channels players would generally be able to see with the default server settings. These settings can be further fine tuned on the individual muds themselves as well.

I'm not one to randomly ban people from the network because a player got out of hand. As a matter of fact, only 2 bannings from the network. One of which has been reversed, and the mud is again allowed on the network.

There appears to be a strong push for left wing liberal speech codes on both MudBytes and IMC. Davion told me he's from Canada, and perhaps Kayle is fresh out of university where thought control is the norm nowadays. As Samson experienced some time ago, especially factual statements will get you in trouble if they clash with the liberal doctrine. If you look into the issue you'll find out that the left wing liberal doctrine of equality has been at war with science for the past 50 years in a manner that's pretty much identical to Lysenkoism. So I'd say that what we see here is political censorship using the weak excuse of "We had a trouble player (after 6 years) - so now we must take stern action!!"

I don't think it's as much that they feel threatened, but that it's a righteous kind of rage against unbelievers - who in their personal world have been demonized to the degree that they don't deserve to be treated as human beings.

I guess you missed the part where it is explained that there is an "anything goes" channel.

Since you're not arguing just to argue, I'll assume you just have a hard time reading.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net