@Kanye-Qwest Being a flake is commonly thrust as an accusation around here, it's true. We fling it about like it's the worst sin or only a few people ever are accused of it.
The way I see it flakes have been happening forever. You know how many MU* I've seen abandoned and successful at the same time? HM was on autopilot sporadically and in several spheres, it just happened to have a ton of players every night so it just kept going - in fact one of the best spheres I've seen, Vampire, was basically staffless for months. TR? Its creator vanished a few months in, but the timing was right for other people to take up the reigns and it had already been sapping HM's playerbase by then so it kept going.
In other words, it's games which simply lack such numbers - not surprisingly given how shallow our pool of eligible players is - that fail, and then we notice it and stick the 'flake' label on them, but we don't stick it to the ones who keep going because there's still activity there regardless of whether they're well staffed or not.
Something else we might consider: Look at some of the biggest hate-threads on these forums and we might notice something else; people who stick around on the Haven MU*s of our hobbies, our Elsa's if you will, are the ones who are not flakes. Why? Because that's what they got going for them, they are running the games for themselves and couldn't give a damn if they are good or not - as long as they are in charge. Is that a lighter sin than letting your MUSH run its course then letting it slip away into nothingness?
Finally... let's say TJ is a flake. Is it better if he never makes the effort, and a new MU* never sees the light of day, than if it gets made, some people play on it and have fun for a few months then it dies down?
I know I pay money to buy games I fully realize I won't play for more than a month or two on Steam. Why are MU* held to far higher standards of longevity?
