28 Sep, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Wait, … what? Just … what?

I know, it's not every day you see people in their twenties behave like 10 year olds, but I guess they feel they're cool and gain widespread admiration with their actions, or something of that order.

It'd be interesting to see them explain their behavior, and possibly my suggestion to take mud servers out of the equation was truly preposterous and deserving of such a response.
28 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
I think there's some massive irony blinkers being worn here, honestly.

Maya/Rudha
28 Sep, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
They've been laying low as of late, but IMC2 is ran by the MudBytes owners, so I guess they feel it's safe to be assholes in a topic where they feel I'm attacking IMC2 and by virtue, the MudBytes admin.


This is senseless in every context I can parse it. Only someone unaware of the history of this
forum and IMC2 would give you benefit of doubt on it.

Scandum said:
It'd be interesting to see them explain their behavior, and possibly my suggestion to take mud servers out of the equation was truly preposterous and deserving of such a response.


Your commercial software is not the solution to every mud problem. Please behave accordingly.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
29 Sep, 2010, Runter wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
Excuse me for thinking you, Scandum, were adding nonsense you didn't really believe when you have a history of adding sarcastic nonsense to threads that you don't really believe.

But since this time you really do believe it maybe you can explain why I would shoehorn mudmasters direct chat as a service to do something it wasn't made for? Truly if this option was even on the table we would talk about actually shoehorning something using the right model.

Why don't we just use an AOL chatroom and direct all users there?
29 Sep, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
But since this time you really do believe it maybe you can explain why I would shoehorn mudmasters direct chat as a service to do something it wasn't made for? Truly if this option was even on the table we would talk about actually shoehorning something using the right model.

Why don't we just use an AOL chatroom and direct all users there?

Unlike AOL, mudmaster chat is available in several mud clients, though no MUDs have support for it that I know of, but it'd be fairly easy for a MUD to implement.

The mud master protocol has issues, but it'd make sense if a decentralized protocol could be used by both mud clients and mud servers, and is designed with that in mind.
29 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
Have you stopped to consider that there may, in fact, be a reason no MUDs have support for it?

Maya/Rudha
29 Sep, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
Careful Rudha, or the group of at least four persons might become a group of at least five persons. :wink:
30 Sep, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Have you stopped to consider that there may, in fact, be a reason no MUDs have support for it?

I have.
40.0/48