Member Discussions

In July of 2006, my MUD, Star Wars: Galactic Insights, had half a dozen reviews written by players who had enjoyed their time on the MUD. They wrote reviews to share their experiences with us. All was well. A disgruntled staff member posted a review, however, that was not only false, but had private information about myself, in direct violation of this site’s privacy policy. I contacted this site’s administrator, Icculus, and asked to have all of the reviews removed and to have reviews for my MUD disabled. Much to my delight, he obliged.
I do not mind negative reviews. I mind having my personal information displayed without my knowledge against site policy, which was the reason I asked to have it removed. All was well, up until May of 2007, when I asked Icculus if he could remove the shield on my reviews so that players may once again post reviews. I did not ask nor expect to have any of the old reviews restored, even though a link to one of them I checked shows they do still exist. Icculus, however, refused to unblock the reviews, claiming that he had informed me that once the shield was in place, that it could not be removed, despite the fact that he did no such thing. The only warning of any sort he had given me was asking me to confirm my decision to have them locked in the first place. He also informed me that he could have simply deleted the negative review, which was against his site policy, instead of deleting them all and blocking the reviews. Thank you for informing me of this ten months later, after the ability for/ my/ players to post reviews about /my/ mud to /my/ listing is being held hostage. In the end, he refused. Beginning in November of 2007, I sent approximately six more emails every two weeks through February of 2008 asking if he’d reconsider. I also sent a bug report about the TMC connection checker erroneously reporting my MUD as disconnected every other day without a manual connection check.

These emails were ignored. Very professional.
Although this error has been fixed, at the time, he was not only refusing to fix a problem with the stats for my MUD, making me lose over 2 years of uptime count because of his connection checker, he was still holding my reviews hostage. I do also remember reading a post on this site about a situation in which a MUD had its reviews admin blocked and unblocked, but I cannot find this post now. As recently as a week ago, an Administrator from my MUD and myself again appealed to Icculus, asking him to reconsider his decision. Unfortunately, I had to submit a request to disable my MUD listing to even get him to send me an email, again very professional, at which point I asked to have my reviews restored and he again claimed he’d informed me it would be impossible to do such and refused to let me have them back. He even told me if I were to submit another MUD listing, it too would be subject to NOT being able to post reviews. So now every MUD listing I submit cannot have reviews because he approved comments on a submission that had private information in it against his own privacy policy. What kind of madness is this? There is, however, an option in the listing control panel that lets you toggle your reviews on and off, yet Icculus has a master control over my listing and won’t let me set the options on my own listing. And now he’s claimed this has always been the case in the TMC FAQ which is located on the site, yet I’ve been unable to find.

The purpose of this Open Letter is to bring this situation to the community and seek advice. Perhaps I am in the wrong here and Icculus has every right to do what he has done to me. Any comments are welcome.

tl;dr

Blame Canada.

He even told me if I were to submit another MUD listing, it too would be subject to NOT being able to post reviews.

This alone should be a big flashing clue. Something is happening beyond
what you've posted. You might even be unaware of it yourself. But clearly
information is missing from your story, and whether the gap comes from
you concealing it, or from you not recognizing it, it makes it impossible
to do anything but dismiss your post as feeling "off".

If you're Banner from MudBytes (just a guess here based on the mud in question),
I suggest to you that your dealings with me have been abrasive and off-putting,
and if that's how you've been dealing with Icculus, it would not surprise
me if his default response to you is null.

Note also that if you're *not* Banner, this comment still applies if Banner
has been involved in these goings-on.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

This alone should be a big flashing clue. Something is happening beyond
what you've posted. You might even be unaware of it yourself. But clearly
information is missing from your story, and whether the gap comes from
you concealing it, or from you not recognizing it, it makes it impossible
to do anything but dismiss your post as feeling "off".

No, nothing is missing. I've told everything as it happened, correctly and fully.

If you're Banner from MudBytes (just a guess here based on the mud in question),
I suggest to you that your dealings with me have been abrasive and off-putting,
and if that's how you've been dealing with Icculus, it would not surprise
me if his default response to you is null.

Note also that if you're *not* Banner, this comment still applies if Banner
has been involved in these goings-on.

Contrary to popular belief, I only respond negatively to attacks, such as those MUDbytes is quick to generate. Icculus was concise and to the point up until he began to lie and refuse to honor his own policies.

I think it is strange that you would try to cast aspersions on
the ethics of an admin after this:

http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG2&area=promotions&page=1&message=21030#21041

I think it is strange that you would try to cast aspersions on
the ethics of an admin after this:

http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discuss.cgi?mode=MSG2&area=promotions&page=1&message=21030#21041

Which was covered in the policy you agreed upon when you signed up for an account. I don't see how that is relevant, unless you're saying Icculus has the right to act the way he did in his policy. A quick read over it confirms that he does not, so let's remain on topic.

Well you're complaining about exactly the way you acted.

I think that's strange.

I guess there might be some sense in which that is not hypocritical.

I don't know what that sense is, though, and you've failed
to articulate it adequately.

I suggest that it's up to you, now, to quote the policy that
Icculus violated. That's pretty much the only thing now between
you and complete disregard, I think.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

(Comment added by cratylus on Fri Feb 19 14:45:57 2010)

From the TMC TOS:

TMC has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions in our sole discretion at any time and for any reason without giving you any prior notice: a) terminate, suspend or limit your access to TMC or any of the Services provided by TMC; b) refuse to post, move or remove any content that is available on TMC; c) refuse to post, move or remove any content that you have posted to TMC; d) modify or remove any or all of the Services provided by TMC; e) suspend or delete your member account and all information you have posted to TMC; f) modify the practices and limits regarding the use of TMC and its Services.

And here's where I ask why you'll complain about the TOS of a free MUD host that six or seven users frequent, but when a massive website used by several hundred people, listing several hundred MUDs, ect, uses the exact same TOS, you don't complain.

Just to complain, right?

I thought as much. Thank you for clearing that up.

Back to the task at hand.

The point I'm making, Banner, is that TMC's TOS outlines the
same rights you exercised in your own adminship.

You are complaining about someone else exercising those very
same admin rights you exercised.

You are calling into question the ethics of that person.

In doing so, you are per se calling into question your own ethics.

I think this is germane to the validity of your complaint, as
your credibility is weakened if your argument is correct. It's
kind of a funny rhetorical situation you've placed yourself in,
and afaict, you've just punched yourself out in your own thread.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

>Contrary to popular belief, I only respond negatively to
attacks, such as those MUDbytes is quick to generate.

More like taking jabs at people who weren't even
involved. I think your attitude is pretty obvious.

(Comment added by Zeno_McDoh on Fri Feb 19 15:31:16 2010)

Google Chrome, blah.
URL:
http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=topic&t=1074&p=16060

I will post a quick response since you chose to post here, but this is the last I will say on the topic - I thought we were done debating this issue two years ago until you brought it up again the other day.

You requested your reviews be disabled, it was explained to you that our policy means if you reject or disable reviews for the mud it is a permanent process which won't be undone, otherwise it would be a vehicle for mud admins to pick and choose which mud reviews they wish to be hidden and only reveal the positive reviews. I'm not saying this was your intention, only that this is why the policy is in place. I will also note that you claim this point was not explained to you, I am reasonably certain that it was and I know that it is noted in our site FAQ.

The point you seem to be making is that I am singling your mud out by telling you that by creating a new listing you cannot sidestep our policy, that is, that you will suddenly be eligible for new mud reviews with the new listing. The policy we have is for the mud, not just the mud's listing, creating a new listing doesn't change the fact that behind the scenes its still the same mud that once upon a time chose to reject/disable a review and now wants to undo that choice. I am done, I am sorry you want to still argue about it, I no longer wish to take part.

Icculus

Which was covered in the policy you agreed upon when you signed up for an account. I don't see how that is relevant, unless you're saying Icculus has the right to act the way he did in his policy. A quick read over it confirms that he does not, so let's remain on topic.

Let's take this one sentence at a time. It's too much stupidity to respond to at once.

Which was covered in the policy you agreed upon when you signed up for an account.

It was in your policy that people who were opinionated and whose opinions varied from your own would have their accounts suspended by you? No.

On the other hand the scenario you are bitching about was in the policy you agreed to. It is not Icculus's fault if you chose not to read the policy before agreeing to it.

Proof:

"As a mud admin receiving my first review letter, if its negative can i reject it and wait until a better one is submitted?
No, the first review is the only review ever submitted to an admin. Setting a no reviews flag is permanent. We have an all or nothing policy for obvious reasons. We advise mud admins who receive a negative review to accept anyway and submit a comment rebutting the remarks. Reviews are a valuable forum for receiving constructive criticism and recruiting new players, rejecting reviews closes this forum to you. If no reply is received from admins within the time specified the review automatically goes live one week later. Additionally, requesting mud reviews to be disabled at any time will prevent the mud from being eligible for reviews for the listing, this process is non-reversable."

I don't see how that is relevant, unless you're saying Icculus has the right to act the way he did in his policy.

This is his site, he has the right to do anything he wishes on it.

quick read over it confirms that he does not, so let's remain on topic.

A quick read shows that he followed his policy to the letter.


The sewer is that way maggot -->

Crawl.

Contrary to popular belief, I only respond negatively to attacks, such as those MUDbytes is quick to generate. Icculus was concise and to the point up until he began to lie and refuse to honor his own policies.

I find that to be completely false. I've been a lurker of MudBytes for a LONG time, and just recently started posting there, and I can honestly say that the only time I've EVER seen MudBytes 'generate' attacks, if when the OP starts becoming an abrasive douchebag because they didn't get their way or someone disagreed with them.

From my personal experience, everyone who is a regular on MudBytes is a decent, helpful, friendly human being. A great bunch of folks. What -you- did to get them all riled up is beyond me.

Threadomancer strikes again.

Wait, so James Bond was in Star Wars and I missed it? Now I'm
bummed. I bet you it was cool.

From my personal experience, everyone who is a regular on MudBytes is a decent, helpful, friendly human being.

Oh crap. Cratylus and I just got called decent, helpful, human beings. Apocalypse impending.

Oh crap. Cratylus and I just
got called decent, helpful, human beings. Apocalypse
impending.

There are always exceptions to any rule. ;)

There are always exceptions to any rule. ;)

Does that rule have an exception?

Well, I'm pretty sure KaViR as auditor is like having a serial
killer as your primary care physician.

Think you are getting KaVir mixed up with yourself *CENSORED*nugget!

> Well, I'm pretty sure KaViR as auditor is like having a
> serial killer as your primary care physician.

I explained to you that I was a TMC auditor. I explained to you that it was my responsibility to audit inaccuracies that were brought to my attention. I explained to you that refusing to comply with the Diku licence was considered a major issue when auditing a Diku derivative.

You then proceeded to tell me that around 40% of DikuMUD remained unchanged within NiMUD, and that you did not follow the Diku licence - yes, that's right, you brought it to my attention, after I had explicitly told you that I was expected to act whenever such an issue was brought to my attention.

I told you multiple times that if you didn't correct it, your mud would have to be audited. You responded with insults, and told me outright that you would not fix it.

What exactly did you expect me to do?

Do you really think any other TMC auditor would have responded differently?


(Comment added by KaVir on Tue Aug 10 17:45:02 2010)

I just noticed your email, Locke, where you reported me to TMC for "abusing my power" and claimed that you'd been following the licence all along.

Just a quick clarification, before you get too caught up in your lies:

As an auditor, I have no power on TMC. None. All I have is responsibility - when a listing problem is brought to my attention, I write up a summary of the major and minor issues, and email it to Icculus. He then verifies what I've written, and decides on the appropriate response.

In other words, I just save him some leg work.

That means that:

(1) He read my summary, which included a link to your post where you stated "I will still not put DikuMUD in the credits command".

(2) He verified my audit, which means he knows that you didn't include the credits.

(3) He decided on the outcome. Not me.

If you'd simply asked me this in advance, you could have avoided the embarrassment of being caught in another lie.

You then proceeded to tell me that around 40% of DikuMUD remained unchanged within NiMUD, and that you did not follow the Diku licence - yes, that's right, you brought it to my attention, after I had explicitly told you that I was expected to act whenever such an issue was brought to my attention.

No, and this is an example of how you exaggerate and distort to make yourself appear in a "fair" position. I have rebuffed this claim you have made before, because you have made this stupid claim before.

In fact, I went so far as to prove only 7% similarity of a file which is more similar than many of the others and I released this document describing the similarity with much transparency; it is called the NiMUD Anatomy document, one in a series, the rest of which I am not sure when I'll complete.

http://nimud.divineright.org/NIMUDAnatomy.pdf

You have made other bold claims before. I call it "bold" to question the authenticity of my relationship with Christopher Woodward, my good friend with whom I wrote the OLC add-on for DikuMUD.

I called into question your actions because you simultaneously reported my listing as you announced the grand opening of your new mud. I am certain your timing is not an accident, and I know it was just to rub my face in your "power" and ability to manipulate my life. You have done this before and that is because you are a sociopath. I point others to the GodWars Timeline which outlines your systematic behavioral issue in a pattern of abuse of other administrators, their rights, and the use of your positions of meager authority to control others.

You have a serious issue, you are a control freak, and beyond that, have little or no respect for other's thoughts and emotions, history, the author's voice, nor even the health of other people in the community at large, not just the "mudding community" -- my own testimony to that effect can describe your incessant whining and bothersome accusations, media-jamming techniques and disruptive, off-topic trolling. You do this because you feel that abuse gets you what you want, when in reality all you had to do was accept that you might be a position that was either a) too extreme (in that you utilized dirty tricks to make the appearance of charity function as a ruse for your own PR campaign) b) outright rude.

In your vigilante-like acts, you have disregarded my rights as an author, in lieu of narrow views of a particular "snippet" from the law, without any real legal responsibilities to do so. In the course of such activities, you spent a great deal of time acting as an alarmist about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the current discussions I was attempting to have before your rudeness interrupted, trolled and harassed me.

The process to whatever warped sense of "justice" you have should not involve personal attacks, libel, sock-puppetry and the use of cronyism and the encouragement of cronyism and gang-like behavior. In essence, you bullied me and your friends helped you bully me, and that's what is unfair about your behavior. That is what I would label as sociopathic: the fact that you could not come to a level of courtesy that would have convinced me, rather than bullied me. The issue was not debated: you berated me, added salt to my personal wounds, failed to resolve any conflicts and in fact created many more in the process. You were unkind, albeit crusading for what you apparently felt was a worthy cause.

I still hold the view that "running a DikuMUD" is not "running a Merc" or "running a NiMUD" or "running a Circle" - and even though you and others may disagree, it does not matter because I will never agree with the notion that a derived work is the original work. That is simply not the case. Being that it is not the original work, thereby labeled "DikuMUD" it cannot be accurately labeled "a DikuMUD" when it is, indeed, a derived work. The clause that caused the initial contention is in the DikuMUD license, and refers to the original work DikuMUD, not its derivatives. It is an extreme position to hold to say that all derivatives of DikuMUD must comply to the paragraph referring to the requirements regarding the "credits" command.

In fact, the evidence I present is simple: a derived work is not the original, and therefore since the license did not say "any derivative of DikuMUD must include ... 'credits command'" but instead said "When running a DikuMUD" referring to the act of running DikuMUD. I know that the opinions of Hans Henrik Staerfeldt, the only person who speaks about it currently, cannot possibly be the actions of the entire group of authors known as the "DikuMUD Group" . . . for that reason a vote would have to be taken by the DikuMUD group to decide unanimously changes to the license which would rectify any misinterpretations of the license, or to change or address this issue directly in any way.

Because of this I feel that the paragraph in question is erroneously interpreted to mean that "running a DikuMUD" is not synonymous with "running a DikuMUD derivative", since DikuMUD cannot legally lay claim to my work, they can only set forth the stipulations by which I can derive it. For the most part - barring intermittent issues with HEDIT causing document deletion or other unplanned oversights - I have been in compliance since the beginning. I can admit my youthful mistakes, but also I've addressed them.

Since I have been forced to comply with this interpretation, without any authoritative legal certification, instead just to stop the harassment, you cannot say with certainty that what I am doing is even required. Furthermore, I find it insulting that you would stoop to such a level as to bring this issue up - again - and simultaneously release / launch your service specifically on the day that you had my listing removed from TMC.

The bottom line is that hundreds of e-mails have been exchanged between me and your "gang" since 2003. On one occasion the amount and frequency of insults and disruptions to my local network showed me that, hidden amongst your midst, is someone who is willing to break the law just to have it their way. Additionally, you have disrespected me to a point where it effected my health.

You do not represent a majority but instead a privileged minority - a small group who have formed into a pack of trolls, sometimes harassing me to a point where the authorities have had to step in. You are not elected to your positions and the actions of your cronies were not in the public interest -- because it is not in the public interest to create harassment.

Your "mob" is the worst kind: barbarian. It slashes and slices, defaces and expunges information, sadly in the name of a group of college students from DIKU, many of whom probably don't care what it is you are doing and, if they realized the extent to which you bend existing law to enforce theirs, may not be interested in you continuing such activities in their name at all. I doubt Papi, or Katja Nyboe wants you to go around harassing people to the extent which you have, though I'm sure the one remaining vocal member, Hans Henrik Staerfeldt, enjoys it because he, too, has taken an extreme position which infringes on others' rights to save what he erroneously perceives as his own.

You should learn some respect: to respect your elders, those who have contributed to your development, the rights to peaceable enjoyment and coexistance and the right not to be harassed. People like you ruin systems with unfair bias and unruly behavior. You have filled this board and others with complete garbage, ranting on and on about how you are right and others are wrong - about how you are justified in bringing personal attacks, insults, immature behavior and pseudo-illegal communication to bear on a poor, frustrated open source developer who, after nearly 20 years of participating to some extent in the development of free software, has basically wasted the majority of his finest years developing a form of software which is not only worthless, but in danger of disappearing altogether.

The "trimming" of mud history to suit individuals is a biased one. If you "trim" this community eventually it will whither and disappear, along with the work. The idea that the egos of one or two self-proclaimed "guards" of the information can obliterate segments of archives and repositories just because they interpret something to be different than it was initially interpreted goes against your elders, goes against community, goes against decency and destroys valuable evidence, history and information.

Go burn Alexandria, Barbarian - but do it on someone else's time, on your own creations -- and see how it feels to watch your work be destroyed by nothing more than a self-righteous thug. It is a much nobler effort to retain, restore and protect valuable knowledge, history, evidence and information.

will you just get over it

will you just get over it

No because what he and others are doing is damaging our communal memory and archives by appeasing just a few cronies.