a pretty good suggestion

[Lotion]

This is a decision the owners of the game have to make.

Who owns the game?
In my mind the notion that ArmageddonMUD is a thing to be owned is truly boggling.

At any given moment, the Producer team owns the game, it's been that way since soon after inception.  All games are owned by someone.  Blizzard owns WoW, Nintendo owns Mario, etc.

Comparing ArmageddonMUD to Mario or World of Warcraft doesn't seem appropriate to me. It is not a product created by a corporation who owns it and produces it in order to obtain monetary gains.

[Dar]

This is a decision the owners of the game have to make.

Who owns the game?
In my mind the notion that ArmageddonMUD is a thing to be owned is truly boggling.

At any given moment, the Producer team owns the game, it's been that way since soon after inception.  All games are owned by someone.  Blizzard owns WoW, Nintendo owns Mario, etc.

Comparing ArmageddonMUD to Mario or World of Warcraft doesn't seem appropriate to me. It is not a product created by a corporation who owns it and produces it in order to obtain monetary gains.

is this actually important?

[racurtne]

This is a decision the owners of the game have to make.

Who owns the game?
In my mind the notion that ArmageddonMUD is a thing to be owned is truly boggling.

At any given moment, the Producer team owns the game, it's been that way since soon after inception.  All games are owned by someone.  Blizzard owns WoW, Nintendo owns Mario, etc.

Comparing ArmageddonMUD to Mario or World of Warcraft doesn't seem appropriate to me. It is not a product created by a corporation who owns it and produces it in order to obtain monetary gains.

is this actually important?

I think this is a disagreement over terminology. Own, administer, or even run could all be used. The overall sentiment is they decide the policy and direction here, so it doesn't seem like an important distinction to me at least.

[Brokkr]

The distinction I was trying to make in using that specific word was in relation to the increasing use of political oriented terminology.  The mud is not governed via a political system.  The mud ownership, power and decision making structure is much more similar to a corporate.  Specifically a non-profit corporation without share ownership.

This is relevant in the context of some of the recent conversations such as this this one, one about a player outside of Staff authority to review complaints, etc.  Ultimate decision making and policy rests with the owners of the mud. Some of the suggestions, or at least the language used in them, was using terminology that hinted either folks didn't know about this structure, or were envisioning something else.

[Pariah]

The other problem with publicly listing this type of shit is that people change.

I used to play the forums more than I played the game, enjoying messing with the people and not the characters as intended and was banned from the forums for a long while.

I feel like I've changed to fighting the point instead of the people, in the system you're putting forward it would make it very hard for people to come out from that shadow of douchebaggery.

I think it's better the way it is where if someone stirs up shit the staff can choose to respond publicly or not.