On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Dan Argent wrote:
> >
> > His name is zmud
> >
>
> I would like to point out I am simply offering the idea for a tool to be
> used against multiplayers. I am not claiming that it will stop all
> multiplaying, and yes, you can't just rely on one method, but must use all
> that you can get you hands on. Anyway, all this creative scripting and
> such is far more trouble than the average player would go to.
>
> Yours
> Dan
A personal opinion of course, but you make the assumption that "creative
scripting and such is far more trouble than the average player would go
to" while I make the assumption that if the mud has the rule "No
Multi-Playing" and I want to multi-play, I'll go to another mud that
allows it. Does everyone think this way? Obviously not or this thread
would have died long ago. All of the ideas I've seen in this thread would
effectively end my playing on any mud that implemented one of these
no-multi-player solutions. Why? My wife and I like to play on muds
together. We use wingate to share the internet connection. We don't send
messages to each other (we're sitting right next to each other), we often
work in close unison, watching each other's screen to see when the other
needs healed, rescued, etc. We would very likely get "caught" by one of
the hard-coded multi-player stoppers. The only way to prevent
multi-playing is to make the rule, and then have imms that are willing and
able to watch, carefully, over a period of time; give warnings; accept
explanations; etc.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST