[MUD-Dev] Re: pet peeves
Caliban Tiresias Darklock
caliban at darklock.com
Fri Feb 12 10:10:10 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999
From: Marc Bowden <ryumo at merit.edu>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 6:53 AM
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: pet peeves
> but running any codebase at
>all responsibly makes us brothers in arms of a sort.
See, that's my whole point. It's that additional word "responsibly" that
makes us brothers in arms. I could give a damn whether you do or have or
might run a MUD. Running a MUD means nothing. What MUD you run means
nothing. What matters to me is whether you're a reasonably intelligent and
If someone from this list were to show up on my MUD, my reaction and
response would be based a lot more on who they were and what they had said
than it would be on the fact that they just happen to run a MUD. Long ago, I
used to extend a level of courtesy to other SysOps on my BBS. Do you run a
BBS? You do! Which one? What's the number? Here, you're a fellow SysOp, you
may have unlimited download privileges and you are automatically approved to
post in the moderated SysOps conference.
Then I started to catch more and more people lying, so I started to verify
the board by calling it before granting guest SysOp privileges. And I
started to see that even the people who WEREN'T lying were running
short-term boards that seemed to be up only for the purpose of getting guest
SysOp bennies on other boards. So I had to make a decision. Was I going to
evaluate every SysOp who showed up and give him a thumbs up or thumbs down?
Nope. I discontinued guest SysOp privileges.
And the overall average quality of MUD imms is certainly a good deal lower
today than the quality of BBS SysOps was in 1990.
| Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban at darklock.com
| Darklock Communications http://www.darklock.com/
| U L T I M A T E U N I V E R S E I S N O T D E A D
| 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H -=CABAL::3146=-
More information about the MUD-Dev