Talk:MUSH

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I intend to do a fairly significant revision of this article, since much of what it discusses is applicable to all sorts of TinyMUD-derived MUD servers, and the distinguishing characteristics of TinyMUSH are not properly discussed. In fact, I will probably move the article to be called "TinyMUSH", since that's the proper name, and leave a redirect from "MUSH"; I haven't yet decided whether to do a separate article on "mudding", or to create a new section within MUD. Squiddhartha 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Remove Citations Note?[edit]

MUSHING isn't something your really likely to /ever/ find a journal or newspaper article on. This isn't a religion or a company, its not a popular MMO or a scientific fact. Its a fringe group of text-based games. Having the citations note at the top of the page inspires trolling from people who have never mushed before, or have some sort of agenda (as seen below). The citations wikipedia already has are basically the only ones that /exist/. Hewhorulestheworld (talk)

Historical Note by Larry Foard[edit]

It is reliable. However designed might be too strong a word. The original TinyMush version was a set of many hacks on top of the original TinyMUD code. Done from a 2400 baud dumpster salvage terminal in an apartment next to the projects in North Hampton Mass. over 3000 miles of early 1990s internet to a machine at UCB. You typed a good fraction of a line of code before it echoed.

The time the company I was working for had hit hard times, so I had little in the way of work or money, but plenty of free time to fill. The work was done on a microvax system at Berkeley which I'd been graciously given an account by a nice guy who've I've met online. Sadly that machine died during an upgrade and that was the end of my role in TinyMush development. Luckily by that time several other people had the code and had started working with it, the first being the TinyTIM mud, which had started out as a TinyMUD. —User:64.81.61.206 02:46, Apr 15, 2005

Plural form[edit]

MUSHes? MUSHs? MUSH? I've seen all three. Which is most correct? Are they all good? More to the point: Should we standardise on one? Most of the internal article usage is singular, or adjective-style plural (MUSH servers), but some other pages use the plural noun form (of MUSH). (According to the Manual of Style, perhaps the 'MUSH server' form is most appropriate... their examples are 'blacks' versus 'black people', etc.) -- Wisq 16:56, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

I'm a passionate MUSHer...I've seen MUSH as singular everywhere I go. MUSHes is the typical plural. --Penta 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article division[edit]

I fully intend to divide this article up into PennMUSH, TinyMUX, TinyMUSH, RhostMUSH, and so forth someday and leave this page as a glorified disambiguation. As a passionate MUSHer and a passionate pedant, I feel the differences between the four (particularly Rhost, which is one odd beast relative to the other three) need to be spelled out. Ain't got time to do it right now, though. Lord Bob 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They could be spelled out, but I'm not sure it would be particularly helpful. To the player, I can say from 10+ years experience, you'd be unable to tell the difference between any of the codebases of MUSH and MUX. MUSH and MOO, yes. MUSH and MUX, let alone their internal derivatives like between PennMUSH and TinyMUSH? No. The differences hardly seem enough for more than a stub, at least. --Penta 03:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a player, I can usually tell the difference between PennMUSH and Tinyx as soon as I have to interact with a channel. :P I do see your point, but I was thinking seperate articles would be better more for their seperate histories than their seperate code. Lord Bob 04:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between MUSH/MUX definitely deserve to be separated. As a longtime MUSH/MUX player, and having hosted hundreds of games, the vast majority of players I've dealt with are extremely particular about the nuances. More to the point, however, each codebase has its own development history and design philosophy, and there has often been a great deal of confusion this, particularly due to the naming conventions. Ignoring this is to substantially gloss over the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.145.248 (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad times, good times, and society[edit]

I'm wondering if the Twink Olympics, Andy Awards, and Online Gaming Resource MUSH are worth mentioning in this article. Do they have a place to fit in? Sketch-The-Fox 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. The former two are just bits of MU* culture that might deserve an external link but are hardly relevant in the big picture. OGR is technically a MUX, for one thing (yeah, I'm a pedant like that), but more importantly it isn't really anything more than a hangout. In broad terms, it has no real importance to the future of MUSHdom, although I hang out there and think it's a cool place. Lord Bob 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know something is a MUSH server?[edit]

It's hard for me to see (even under a Pedantic standard) how any one of the four (PennMUSH, TinyMUSH, TinyMUX, or RhostMUSH) could claim the title as One True MUSH Server. TinyMUX and TinyMUSH are near to each other. The distance to PennMUSH is a little further, and parts of RhostMUSH are close to TinyMUX and TinyMUSH, other parts are close to PennMUSH, and other parts are yet further away from either. PennMUSH is neither the most distant relative nor at the center of the constellation. The majority of the distance of PennMUSH from TinyMUX and TinyMUSH is in it's parser (which is a proper top-down parser). This gives it a slightly different grammer, better handling of escapes in certain contexts, and makes it somewhat more vunerable to denial of service attacks. However, this does not set it apart as a separate, better class of MUSH server. So, this question of what makes something a MUSH server is probably a discussion topic in need of having. brazilofmux 22:59, 15, February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that either of them could say that they are "the one" server, no. I'd say that TinyMUX, TinyMUSH, RhostMUSH, and TinyMUX are all MUSH servers, and from there any smaller bases can be evaluated in relation to those four. I do not pretend this is anything more than one man's opinion, of course. Lord Bob 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codebase Support Centers[edit]

Someone building a game will invariably interact with M*U*S*H, OGR, MPUG, or BrazilMUX. In two years, this list will probably change, and I may have left something out of the list, but these places (one is a PennMUSH, the other three are TinyMUXes) are the first line of support for people building MUSH games and using MUSH servers. Perhaps an argument can be made for why these places aren't appropriate for the MUSH topic, but it seems these places should be no more than one step away from this topic. brazilofmux 23:26, 15, February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're worth having articles of their own, but they could do with being mentioned on this page, if only as external links. Lord Bob 00:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MU* community has been kept alive through listings services, prominent listing services in the history of MU* need their own article. Some of them are still active. -Dan Mar 2, 2010- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.40.93 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BattletechMUX?[edit]

Okay, it's an actual server. What I get for getting lazy and not doing my research. :P But should it really be on the page regardless? I mean, as far as I can tell it's a not-particularly-notable fork of TinyMUSH. Has it really accomplished anything yet? I haven't heard about it being in something resembling common use, and there are plenty of custom codebases out there based on Tinysomething that justly do not have articles or links. Lord Bob 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't play Battletech myself, but I do know that it has been around for a while, its a reasonably complete implementation of the game. And there are several games that run the code. There are special MU-clients to go with it too, I think. I don't know how many players the various games have, but my feeling is that its probably enough to be at least mentioned. Ehheh 00:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BattletechMUX has been around for ages in one form or another, it's accomplished much in the past and is certainly doing so now. Amongst other things, it's the first MUSH server to implement completely asynchronous SQL, it's the MUSH server that has the most available and developing in terms of graphical clients (see CHUD for a particularly impressive example), it has a well-developed and organized Documentation Site, Community Portal, SourceForge Project, and various other support structures. As far as modifications to the MUX source, most of it has been gutted and rewritten, taking a very aggressive stance towards speed. As mentioned earlier, the Battletech extensions allow players to fight and navigate in a realtime, 3D plane. There really is no more complex combat system out there in MU*, and that's not just a boastful statement, feel free to prove me wrong :) So in terms of it being a not-particularly-notable fork, do some more research before making a statement such as that as it couldn't be further from the truth. --SquishyWaffle 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzball[edit]

Added this for a couple of reasons:

  • It runs some of the larger MUSHes out there, including FurryMUCK.
  • It is in reasonably widespread use, being generally considered simpler to administer than TinyMUCK/X.
  • It currently has a stand-alone stub of an article, which is up for deletion. I favor a merge and redirect. Shimeru 17:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me, then. (Also, I like the use of "rrv" ;) ) Sketch-The-Fox 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the page just was deleted a few days ago, I created a redirect from Fuzzball MUCK to MUSH. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, wait, this is wrong. Fuzzball isn't a MUSH at all. It's a MUCK server base. Fuzzball should redirect to MUCK, not MUSH. Fixing that now. --67.142.130.18 21:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, that was me. I figured out now why I wasn't able to stay logged in. The changes to this article from the above IP address are also me. --67.142.130.18 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...grrr. --Kynn 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life[edit]

Is Second Life a mush?

Second Life would be more like an MMORPG. Typically, MUSHes have no graphics at all, barring the use of Pueblo or MXP (MUD/MUSH eXtension Protocol) protocols--and those aren't particularly widespread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sketch-The-Fox (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
True, it is not a MUSH from the code base, but the fact that it encourages players from developing own rooms, items and contributing code, seems to put it apart from existing MMORPGs, as much as MUSHes and MUDs are different. But you are right, Second Life does not belong into this article. --Schoelle 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second Life does allow (and encourage) building and coding which is one of the typical activities of a MUSH, however, it is unlike MUSHes and MUDs in more ways than it is like them. Second Life allows people to collect items and setup a dream home. It is also a platform for making graphical puzzle games. However, it doesn't support story-telling particularly well (limit pose length, the stage is the screen itself yet there is no way to control the 'frame' other players have of the scene, pre-authoring all the required graphics and scripts for telling a cooperatively-created story is still too much work). It also is not a game in and of itself in the way that MUDs usually are. To summarize, graphics are not a story. They are props to a story. -- brazilofmux 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content must be WP:V / WP:NPOV and not WP:PROMO[edit]

Per request on Jlambert 's talk page.

Content must be verifiable, opinions must be sourced to reliable third parties, content must not be promotional in nature. The article has been flagged for over 2 years regarding its poor condition. Removal of the improper content is completely valid. Restoration of improper content is not and can lead to accounts being blocked. 207.69.140.37 (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why this justifies the removal of unsourced opinion-like statements, such as those regarding the ease of coding, but the list of MUSH code variants is trivially verifiable by following the links and would seem encyclopedic in nature. Squiddhartha (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the page. Removed the term "Popular" from the "Mush Software" titled section which includes all current Mush branches anyway so it isn't promotional. Removed the "easy to code" bit. Jlambert (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any source other than your personal claim to support your statement "includes all current Mush branches " - WP:V
The above quotation doesn't appear in the article. It's easily falsifiable, by simply including more Mush servers in the list, which I encourage you to do. Jlambert (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The raw links to outside sites are improper use of external links, and all they do is go to a site using it as a primary source.
Wikipedia is not here to provide readers a link to MUSH sites. It is here to provide verifiable third party information ABOUT MUSH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.23 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not MUSH sites, those are code variants of the MUSH server. Squiddhartha (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EL, links to official sites are allowed. I think that the links should be left in. - MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Jlambert (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read the first sentence of WP:EL? "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.232 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, at first glance, many of the "sources" that were added recently are not suitable per WP:RS.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.232 (talk • contribs)
If their presence in the body of the article is the root of your objection, why don't you move them to into a subsection of the external links rather than deleting them? - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me also so I moved it. Jlambert (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hold that the links do NOT meet WP:EL Our links NOT to includes: "19.Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." and 10. "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."
These sites are NOT the official MUSH site, they are sites that run MUSH ware, therefore they do not qualify as links that should be linked or considered. They do not provide additional encyclopedic information about the topic of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.173 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, those are not "sites that run MUSH ware," they are sites that host variants of MUSH server code. I don't know who you are, or why you refuse to sign your comments, or why you insist on using an IP address rather than an account, or why you've latched onto this article for your attention, but if you can't see the difference between a running MUSH and a software host, perhaps you should look into other articles. Squiddhartha (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as our article on "cars" does not externally link to "Ford" or Toyota" and our article on "soft drinks" does not link to "coke" or pepsi" or our article on "condoms" link externally to "Trojan". They are not appropriate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.90 (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've already argued that they are appropriate and the guidelines certainly allow external links. There's no point continuing the line of argument. Jlambert (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seriously. Some of the above people complaining about links via anonymous ip addresses have clearly never Mushed before. I hate it when people throw peanuts from the peanut gallery when they've never seen a peanut before. Hewhorulestheworld (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

From WP:EL "What should be linked ... 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work... ... If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate."

So links to sites hosting the various publications of the software that this article is about are appropriate. Jlambert (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "cars" doesn't link to "Ford" or "Toyota", but the article on Ford does link to Ford's website, and the article on Toyota links to Toyota's. Squiddhartha (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you are supporting my point. The "Ford" article links to "Ford"'s official web page. These are not links to MUSH's official web page Again from WP:EL "Official sites": An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1) The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2) The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. MUSH does not control the PennMUSH site or any of the others. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.23 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for anyone to show that these meet Wikipedia's "Official Links" policy. - MM
Well we moved the links outside the body of the article. You've cited 10. and 19. above and I disagree that the links could be characterized as any of those things. I think they are well within acceptable guidelines. Jlambert (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim for inclusion is that they are official links which they are clearly not according to Wikipedia's definition. - MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.6 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of arguments A - "What should be linked...2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work...", B - The links do not meet any of the criteria for "should not be linked", C - They provide further information on the topic which cannot and ought not be included the article. Jlambert (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ's as sources[edit]

So exactly what's the problem with this statement and it's sources? "The source code for most widely used MUSH servers is open source and available from its current maintainers[8][unreliable source?][9][unreliable source?]." Jlambert (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS Reliable sources are those with peer reivew, editorial boards or at least a reputation for fact checking. A FAQ has none of these. A FAQ is only suitable for providing non-controversial statements about the owner/maintainer of the FAQ site, in this instance about PennMUSH itself. - MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.189 (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked at all. And ironic FAQ#References... Jlambert (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles themselves are never usable as reliable sources and trying to use as an example an article that has been tagged for 3 years as being poorly sourced does not help, either. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.222.206 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Alan Schwartz, who maintains the PennMUSH FAQ is the founding editor of the Journal of Virtual Environments and has published papers in the field. He is 'an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' and per WP:RS this source is acceptable. Lydia Leong has also published at least one paper, so should also fall under that bit of policy. I'm removing the tags. Mr. Anon, please be more careful and also bring this kind of thing up on the talk page before adding such tags in the future. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"also bring this kind of thing up on the talk page before adding such tags in the future." Oh please. For an article that is in good shape and actively being improved it is OK to ask for people to bring their concerns to the talk page first. This article had been tagged as being in poor shape for 3 years before I started challenging the content and some sources were brought forward. Requesting a verification that a "source" is not some random FAQ placed on the web by Joe Schmoe is not something that requires pre-approval on a talk page.
However, now that there appears to be a group of editors that are interested in actually improving the article, I will bring my concerns here first. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.140 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allegations of Conflict of interest[edit]

I'm guessing MM is MadMerv aka Locke aka Herbert Gilliand III. Jlambert (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your guess is correct, then as the author of a rival MUD server, his efforts here would represent a conflict of interest. It would explain a lot, though. Squiddhartha (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not MadMerv aka Locke aka Herbert Gilliand III nor associated in any way with any MUD MUCK MUSH or other online community of that sort nor do I even know anyone who is. I find interesting that an attempt to bring the article into better compliance with Wikipedia guidelines is met with accusations of COI rather than "Hmm, this article has been in bad shape for a long time and should be improved." MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.140 (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUSHcode name?[edit]

Does MUSHcode actually have any formal name, as opposed to things it's "usually referred to as"? —chaos5023 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

   Mushcode is as close to a formal name you are going to get. Over at Pennmush dever page, Mushcode is how its refereed as well as softcode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.178.39 (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RhostMUSH[edit]

RhostMUSH is now opensource, the licence seem to be a modified version of the MIT Scheme License. Eddy Beaupré (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MUSH&oldid=1204093237"