Change

I definitely plan to use them (quite soon and hopefully often!), no hording! And sorry about that, I will ask you for spicy pickles soon. Is there a limit to the number of every kind of consumable? Does this include memory stones/spell stones/heat stones? I don't wish to horde items, although some, like stones of all kinds, I don't tend to need often. On that note, I've/will soon update the original post with other things that I'm interested in.

INTP Introvert(33%) iNtuitive(25%) Thinking(1%) Perceiving(33)%[list] [*]You have [i]moderate[/i] preference of Introversion over Extraversion (33%) [*]You have [i]moderate[/i] preference of Intuition over Sensing (25%) [*]You have [i]marginal or no[/i] preference of Thinking over Feeling (1%) [*]You have [i]moderate[/i] preference of Perceiving over Judging (33%) [/list] That's interesting. Usually iNtuitive is higher. I must be finally getting more sensible. I've taken so many of these that they seem to average out to XNXX (where X means 0% aka. equal), but I guess now it'd be XXXX maybe?

[quote name='Dragual' timestamp='1351965235' post='124921'] Book [/quote] Flight

Willing to sell 7 locate stones, 3 weaken stones, 1 attacklock stone and 1 movelock stone.

Happy birthday and un-birthday Burns!

Just thought I'd throw this out there. My name fits the position.. in more ways than one methinks. Game Name: Change Active Days: 135(99%) Current Allegiance: No Homeland Tag: N/A

Edit: Stone is sold. Thanks phantasm. Topic can now be closed.

I'd sell it in a heartbeat for 106. I'd probably also sell it for 50-60 stones, but not nearly as readily.

If we're talking gold... 4 is what I'd automatically sell it for, 3 I'd take if there aren't any better offers, 2 I'd consider, but I'd rather have memory stones than 2 gold.

I'm specifically looking for memory stones (lots of them) although I will accept other offers that I can't refuse. EDIT: Sold.

I'd like the possibility of more creatures [i]and[/i] making it permanent. Here's how it could run:[list] [*]Reset the votes at the beginning of every month. [*]At the end of each month, the person who got 1st place gets a badge saying "Master Judger of Character" or something like that (hopefully shorter). [*]Their badge gets given to the person who wins at the end of the next month (so they'd have to 'fight' for their title to keep it). [/list] This would hopefully be done automatically somehow, otherwise it's too much work really. And unless a group of people wanted to get together to boost their egos in turn, then group voting would be a non-issue I'd hope. But great contest! Thanks Guillak, and congrats to your bosses.

I personally like the idea of alliances having to be defended against possible attackers. In real life, aren't peaceful groups and gatherings often broken up by militant groups? Now I don't know how easy it is to take over an alliance, but apparently it should be harder. There should be a system though where alliances can fight for/defend other alliances (if there isn't already). So the Knights of the Bell could defend attempts to take over the Water Dowsers, for example.

"Perhaps have a voting period of 2 weeks to a month after the applicant has sent in their application. People can go to the capital to vote for the applicants acceptance into the land, or denial with their votes being weighted by land loyalty. The applicant would need at least 50% or so of the votes at the end of the 2 weeks to get in." 50% of the [i]votes[/i] not 50% of the total loyalty. Yes, if what you said happened they'd be unable to join instantly and would have to wait 2 weeks. Plus, if no one [not you] voted for them or against them, they wouldn't get in.

I voted for citizenship and while I see the reasons for the proposed system (it doesn't put a time limit on the voting process, I assume), I'd propose something different. Perhaps have a voting period of 2 weeks to a month after the applicant has sent in their application. People can go to the capital to vote for the applicants acceptance into the land, or denial with their votes being weighted by land loyalty. The applicant would need at least 50% or so of the votes at the end of the 2 weeks to get in. If the ability to vote people in quickly is desired, let people be automatically granted citizenship once 50-51% of the total land loyalty has voted for them joining.

Happy birthday and unbirthday Eon!

Noted, Necromancer. I'll contact you if I decide to take up harvesting herbs again.

Edit: Sold out. Please close the topic.

Essentially my role is my name, enough said, however... Change is someone who planned from the very beginning to change things. What things? Any things. Thus, Change is very interested in collecting tools that can bring about change (memory stones fulfill this role especially well at the moment and I will be enquiring about purchasing some soon). Change has no real motives other than the removal of stagnation. Therefore although Change will be involved in bringing about what some might consider 'good' change, this may not always be the case. That is all.

How many herbs does one need? [url="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/930/eon1.png"]Eon again at the Gates of Marind Bell[/url]

I don't think that I've spend [i]that[/i] little time on the forums, wiki, and the archives (yes I've read through quite a bit, but still not that much. I'm a fast reader, heh.) I know that [i]technically [/i]speaking, land loyalty is just the number of days that you've been a citizen of a land. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this game seems to be a lot more than what things technically are. Heh. As for the test, it could be roleplayed out by a chosen member or members of the community, without them assuming that they've won/done enough. Mur can decide that, and give back the old item, or a new one/spell/etc. But yeah, *goes off to continue reading stuff*.

So existing alliances like the Knights of the Bell, etc. would be used? That'd certainly be interesting... This would be only temporary after all. I for one, [i]would[/i] like to join Marind Bell but it does make sense that without a Queen/King or some other known authority/powerful figure in the land that citizenship can't be granted. Edit: In response to the original post, maybe the chosen representitive of the land has to go through a trial of sorts that possibly cumulates in the creation of a new item or a new method of granting citizenship? *shrugs* I do believe that people should be able to be a citizen of a land, relatively soon (within a month or two maybe?) but the representitives shouldn't just be handed the items back just so they can let people like me into the land without doing anything. Also, this depends on what Mur means by 'land loyalty'. Does he mean loyalty to the actual land itself, or more to the people running the land? If it's the former, maybe make it an individual thing where people can prove their loyalty to a land by their actions. These actions might vary based on the land itself.. although that would mean that people have to follow Mur's assumptions about lands that seem to be more player created, so there's issues with that too. Just my inexperienced opinion, of course.

That sounds like a good idea, Yrthilian. Although Mur seems to be fixing this sometime in the near future with tags and such, this could be a temporary solution. But I'm not sure if it would be worth it or not. What does it take to create an alliance? (that is, would it be worth it to make general alliances for each land, only to have a way of gaining citizenship without joining an alliance created a few days after) (Edited after reading Mur's plans with tags).

Thanks, but I don't think that I got it.

Change 100% (technically more. ) Edit: Like you need more powerful creatures, Fang. Heh