[MUD-Dev] Re: (fwd) AD: [custom graphical] whitestar Crossfire MUD

J C Lawrence claw at under.engr.sgi.com
Fri May 1 17:30:26 New Zealand Standard Time 1998


On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 23:28:35 -0500 (CDT) 
Cat <cat at bga.com> wrote:

Attribution please!

>> the (or a) driving design metric.  It is especially suspect in a
>> hobbiest field where the reasons driving development are typically
>> much more personal and often ego/fad/genital-size/religious-crusade
>> based.

> Probably true of most mud developers.  I have no interest in making
> this pursuit a hobby for myself.  It's a career.  Which is why I
> don't really fit in with the mud development community.

I'd probably fit closer to a religious crusade, but then I don't admit
that (often).  I'm finding increasingly that my motives are becoming
based on philosophic principles rather than meterial goals (an age
factor?).

>> Even in the commercial world this is not necessarily true.  As any
>> of the contractors here can readily report, often, (far too?) 
>> individual hobby horses are used instead as the guide rule rather
>> than any bean-counter's ROI calculation.  Lotus with Notes and
>> CC:Mail is a perfect and well publicised example.  Other cases
>> abound.

> I'm interested in making my decisions based on sound criteria that
> will really enable my work to reach a larger audience.  Not on the
> often misguided assumption "but indulging my hobby horse IS what
> will bring us the biggest audience!"  I've worked at more than one
> company that made their choices that way, and I don't really fit in
> at places like that either.

I've been a contractor since I was 15.  (Translation I've worked at a
great number of companies and seen a larger number of approaches and
justifications).  Trust me on this: There is no effective difference
between your text above and, your simpler provided translation of,
"but indulging my hobby horse IS what will...".  Once side recognises
the fact of his hobby horse, the other side claims that his hobby
horse is defined by "sound criteria" and is therefore naturally
reasonable.  Both claim reason based on self-validating precepts which
form an assumed closed system.  As such neither is arguable without
introducing external arguments -- which of course both systems don't
acknowlesge.

Been there.  Done that.  One of the other reasons I don't like being a
manager.

> My biggest focuses are on topics that see little or no discussion
> here, such as providing extreme ease of use for the extreme novices
> out there.  

I would be extremely interested to see such threads here.  This area
has come up before (Hi Caliban!) and largely died for lact of
dissenting and creative input.  Perhaps you can fan it to life again?

> I think you could make a case that ICQ is actually a bizarre form of
> a skeletal MUD, and that it has one of the most brilliant mud
> designs ever.

This is similar to the position that this list is actually a rather
super-virtual MUD.  Argument accepted and agreed with.

> Anyway I'm sorry for rambling.  I'll try to go back to lurking and
> not say anything for another six months or so.  :X)

Nahhh, why bother then?

--
J C Lawrence                               Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                               Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------(*)                     Internet: claw at under.engr.sgi.com
...Honourary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...

--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list