Rendril

@Kyphis: that was just a message because file was missing temporarily. If such an error does not repeat itself don't worry about it. As the announcements said combat might behave strangely, like with the random ritual creation. Random rituals should not obey the species limitations, please can someone confirm this. @Lifeline: if at least one of them can be put into a ritual then all of them should be useable.

Added "choose again" button so you can reselect your creatures and strategies. Combat limitations now work on species, please check that new rituals created can be used in combat. @Z: PM me the exact creatures|abilties|targets you set, I think I know what is triggering the warning. @Atlas: In IE6, on the bottom left of the page it should have a yellow icon, double click it to open error console, if it is there, and send that. Regarding the "classic" ritual creation, it was considered before the launch but for now won't be enabled. There might be an enhanced legacy interface added later (but shhhh you didn't hear it fro me ) @Lifeline: It is intended to have them allowed up to 6 for now, please check that you can attack with them now that the combat has been updated. Just be careful, the universe might explode. @CM: with this update the issue should be fixed, see if it continues.

Please post here if you have suggestions or bugs about the new ritual creation interface. When posting a bug, please include the following: - Description of the error - Error code the page gave you (if any) - The browser you are using - Browser version - Error console (only the errors that are applicable to the ritual creation page) Post only issues that arise from the ritual page, the rest of the combat system is still being enhanced.

It's not a bug from the new ability to leave the protector. It doesn't fire unless the user triggers it specifically.

Is it not possible to see who voted after you cast your own vote? Edit: A seen vote would have less "abuses"?

[quote name='Shadowseeker' date='11 June 2010 - 07:36 AM' timestamp='1276234587' post='61621'] Well, he should be able to do it..but the admin panel is broken. At least for me, and one other translator I asked, rendril. Any comments? [/quote] It's back up again, yours should be working too.

[quote name='Tarevon' date='15 June 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1276613707' post='61926'] I... see. Well doesn't that basically mean that anyone can take out my creatures xp to 0 if they happen to feel like it Or am I missing something here. [/quote] That is exactly what it means, and not just of your creatures

It was working as intended, however this was not ideal because it basically meant a whole shuffle everytime one of the avatars visble to you was bought. It has been changed and only that specific avatar should be getting shuffled.

Issue should be fixed now.

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659'] I've been using ghost in the shell (the movie- I know next to nothing about the tv show) to illustrate my point that synthetic things cannot hold back the natural (aka the shell cannot hold the ghost if the ghost doesn't want to be held) as an example. I don't know how what we know and what we assume from what we know has no relation to you. The pieces fit from what I can see, however your examples still don't seem to make sense in how you think they don't. [/quote] Yes and that is what the example illustrates, but your argument is that something is synthetic because it is held back by a synthetic limitation. You have yet you say what makes this special case true. [quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659'] If we break out of our cubes, how come we're all still in MD? [/quote] Perhaps because it isn't a cube? Each person has a different cube, and more than one at that. If you wish to make MD your cube, far be it for me to stop you. [quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659'] I think the ultimate premise is that we can [i]never[/i] break out-- all we can do is try to expand our horizons, widen the walls a little, but those walls will never break down because we are not all-knowing. We will always and forever be stuck in a cube. The question is, then, how do we deal with that? [/quote] You might find that your limitation can become your freedom. [quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659'] I've not avoided your arguments- if you're meaning the one you spent on how organic and inorganic are inaccurate terms, that point was already established two posts before you made that one, was agreed upon, and so your comments on that note were a tad late. [/quote] As I said, the terms used are irrelevant. In fact my argument is not on the accuracy of organic/inorganic, if that is all your garnered from it I feel there is an important cube that you still need to overcome. [quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659'] Because giving physical birth to something is a biological process. Sure there's magic and dreams that can create things, but they cannot physically bear child-- they can only 'give birth' in the metaphorical sense. [/quote] That would depend on what you consider "birth". Your own words were that the philosophical is our literal. I was under the impression that we were discussing this in the metaphorical sense. It is my understanding that Sagewoman portray's a human character, so giving birth to a child seems plausible If we assume your argument and say she is an unnatural being, why then can she not have a birth in whatever way such a being would?

It sounds like a Flash problem. Try re-installing Flash, if it doesn't help, clear your cache and restart your computer. If things still don't get better, try using a different browser, and as strange as this sounds, maybe use an OLDER version of FireFox (try a pre-3.0 release) If all else fails, get yourself a competant browser like Opera

[quote name='Aysun' date='30 May 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1275202890' post='60608'] Right, and as my argument was that our souls are inorganic because our cubes are inorganic and still keep us trapped, the idea of Kusanagi, who in theory has a real human ghost, being able to break free of her shell and travel the internet makes sense since her organic soul could not be bound by an inorganic shell, yet we are inorganic constructions here and thus bound by our inorganic cubes that we cannot break free of. It still holds. [/quote] You have yet to provide any reasoning as to why specifically an inorganic being could not break from an inorganic confine. Since you are arguing only this special case, your example of Kusanagi serves no purpose in your attempt to strengthen your agrument. To illustrate, you are using it to say this: A, given B, therefore C. (what we know) Now, D, given B, therefore E. (the deduction as a result of what we know) Surely you see that they don't share the same premise. The fundemental reason that your argument does not hold is this: We break out of our cubes. Even if we ignore all the other arguments (as you seem to be doing by neglecting to refute any that I put forth. I will therefore assume you argree with me), we can see by modus tollens that the premise does not hold (that is, the conclusion is negated and therefore the premise is negated) The point of MD is not that we are in some inescapable cube. We are not confined to the cube because we are organic or inorganic. We have to challenge our limitations and transcend them. The truth will set you free I must echo the question that Burns has posed, "Who says that a not-biological being can't conceive and give birth?"

Your argument was that because we are limited by an inorganic construct, we are therefore inorganic. Yet your example of Major Kusanagi shows that an organic soul can break from the limitation an inorganic shell. As I mentioned, the wording used is irrelevnt, I merely wanted to make a distinction for clarity. I have already stated why neither view of organic/inorganic could hold.

I think it would be also be useful to be able to change where you have it point to or to be able to change it through mdscript. It should be possible to work out a rough orientation to some point based on the scene coordinates. The load on the server would not be much, less than the chat, particularly if it were flash-based and got loaded from cache.

[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] Inorganic things do not occur in nature, that is the whole purpose of it being termed 'inorganic' to begin with. If nature created it, then it would be organic. If man gets its hands on it, alters its molecular properties into a beast of a thing that can never occur naturally on earth, then it is inorganic. [/quote] As Burns said, for something to be organic, it is merely a carbon compound. Nature created both the organic and the inorganic, water is not organic yet it readily appears in nature. I will henceworth refer to the above concepts of organic and inorganic as true-organic and true-inorganic. I ask you to please make a clear distinction between them because you have been arguing two different concepts of organic and inorganic. [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] I feel that natural/unnatural are interchangeable, in this instance, with organic/inorganic. What was created by the world and what was fabricated- like unto the cube we are in. Since in md we are literally in a cube, the philosophical aspects of it then become the literal, and that is what we're left to work with, I think. [/quote] We have established that natural/unnatural are not interchangeable with true-organic/true-inorganic. The terms organic and inorganic are ones we coined for use in this thread, thus I agree they could be interchangeable with natural and unnatural. I also agree that we could be dealing with the philosophical aspects as our literal, and therefore refer you to my earlier post: the organic and inorganic are intersecting sets. Your arguement is that because we are inhibited by an inorganic construct that is fashioned by us, we must therefore be inorganic. Addtionally you therefore postulate that something organic cannot give rise to something inorganic. (please correct me if i am mistaken) Thus you are proposing that organic and inorganic are mutually exclusive, whereas my argument is that they intersect. I will rephrase my previous question (which I just saw had a glaring typo in it) Why would something organic not be able to break from the confines of something that is inorganic? I do not see why something organic cannot produce something ingoranic, are we, organic humans, not able to create inorganic machines? Even if what we are producing stems from our thoughts, why would we not be able to break the barrier? I believe this example was posted by Mur: elephants are tied to stumps when they are young so that they cannot escape, because they are still young and small they fight all they can against it but cannot break free, when they grow older they are tied to the same stump yet do not even try to free themselves because of the limitations that they think are there, even though they could snap the rope easily. This is not a natural (organic) limitation, it is one we force upon it. Surely this does not mean that the elephant is therefore inorganic? [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] I think it is possible for something organic to [i]affect[/i] something else that is organic and thus make it inorganic (our periodic table is proof of such endeavours), however we cannot, say, conceive a child by the regular means that would therefore be some sort of freak inorganic thing. [/quote] Here you are using the notion of true-organic, rather than organic from above. We have already established that true-organic and true-inorganic appear in nature. In fact, we, as human being are both true-organic and true-inorganic. 70% of our body is water, thus true-inorganic, yet the very building blocks of our energy, glucose, is true-organic (a hydrocarbon) Thus by regular means we would not conceive a child that is true-inorganic, but that is both true-organic and true-inorganic. Incidentally, this mirrors my proposition that organic and inorganic intersect. If you like, I will post a venn diagram to further illustrate my meaning of the intersections. [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] And so, my point is that the organic produces the organic but can make what is already organic inorganic after the fact, and in a similar fashion that which is inorganic cannot produce something that is organic- they simply do not have the composition to do so. The inorganic would produce more of itself which is therefore also inorganic. [/quote] Certainly, if something is purely true-organic, anything that it makes of itself would be true-organic, but this has no relation to use or the cube we are in, as you yourself have said we are dealing with the philisophical aspects as the literal. [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] With regards to the soul, I cannot personally think of any more innately organic than that. A shell, which is ultimately inorganic, can have a consciousness that was put into it, but does consciousness constitute an actual soul? It is the argument of "Ghost in the Shell", and a very complex one in and of itself that I think perhaps warrants closer attention but probably not here, heheh. [/quote] Why could an artificial soul not be created? Or why could something inorganic not have an inorganic soul? I am reminded of the modified souls from Bleach, suh as Kon or Nova. The latter was even given a true-organic body. I agree that this is not the place to delve into such debates lest we lose what little semblance of the topic of this thread was left. [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542'] It's similar to the analogy I used earlier but I shall modify it since you have me thinking of souls now- you yourself can, right now, remove or break out of your synthetic, inorganic clothing, however your organic soul cannot break out of its organic body. If we are to use Ghost in the Shell as another example, even Kusanagi can send her ghost/soul out of her shell along the lines of the ethernet, but her police partner who is 100% organic human cannot. It is another tantalizing clue that if she *does* have a soul, it cannot be held back by the inorganic shell if she chooses. [/quote] You have just refuted your own argument that something organic can break from the bonds of something inorganic I must disagree though that Batou is neither 100% true-organic nor 100% organic. He is a cyborg, remember that he was a ranger (which is why he has the occular implants) and can be ghost hacked. Kusanagi is a prime example of the insersection of the organic and inorganic which I proposed. [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1275077551' post='60549'] As for transplanting a soul, one could say that is what has taken place in MD- [background=black][color="#000000"]a soul/consciousness of some varying degree has been placed within an artificial confine (the cube) and we grow at the price of sacrificing marind- or our carefree child-like naivete. Thus if there *had* been any sort of transfer, it wasn't done cleanly.[/color][/background] [/quote] The cube is a confine which we impose upon ourselves, not one that was placed on us by others (although I would say it is both really) [quote name='awiiya' date='29 May 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1275090330' post='60557'] So then what is the difference between organic and inorganic? Well, there isn't one, they're just words. People attempt to make a distinction (organic things have carbon: but what about carbon dioxide? baking soda?), but in truth there is no set line. In this sense, the argument is flawed from the beginning due to relying on such imprecise terms. [/quote] This is why I would like to make a distinction between true-organic and organic. The importance is not on what words are used but on the meaning behind them. We can refer to them as red and blue or anything else for that matter as long as we can differentiate between them. I have not seen how any of the "child alts" have been portrayed, though I am admittedly not travelling around much lately, I will not condemn their role play without witnessing them first hand.

The fundemental reason that we play the game is for enjoyment. As I discussed in another post, this enjoyment can be derived from various methods, perhaps from hurting people, maybe from getting recognition, maybe you like baking cakes, regardless of what we do, our desire is to obtain entertainment from it. Given that there can be such contrasting methods, a situation can arise where fun for one person, opresses the fun for someone else. How can you rule that someone else's fun should be allowed to dominate someone else's? In order for the sytem to function, there must be a compromise, between both parties. Without a level of compromise, neither party can have their fun. Here is an example: Let us say Person A enjoys talking and not whispering, but Person B enjoys whispering but not talking. If Person A only ever talks, Person B will not have any fun, similarly, Person A will not have any fun if Person B only ever whispers. Eventually they must meet half way, Person A sometimes whispering, and Person B sometimes talking, the system cannot function unless this happens and hence neither will enjoy themselves. I realise that compromise might not be the best word for what must be done. What is needed is an amalgam of both acceptance and allowance. So why should you have to compromise? It is simple, if you don't, why should the other party. As for the child/childbirth role play, they are entitled to derive fun from what method they must, yet should be mindful that others might not appreciate it quite as much. There are many ways in which it can be done, and as I have not seen it taking place myself, I cannot comment on whether I agree with it or not. Whether something is poor role play or not role play at all is entirely subjective. Regardless, my point is this, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" [quote name='Aysun' date='27 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1274995590' post='60481'] ... I will quote Mur: "[i]The cube is the created bx around your soul and mind. [u]It is not a natural construction[/u], or it would have been a sphere.[/i]" Therefore, we are not organic, and thus I do not think that we as inorganic entities should be able to produce that which is organic unless, of course, as I also said before, that such a paradox is intended to be one of the many mysteries of MD. [/quote] I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of the cube not being "natural". I do not think that "natural" in this context is as organic. Since both organic and inorganic entities, by virtue of their very existence in nature, are natural, I will assume that you mean a more philosophical and abstract notion of organic and inorganic, rather than carbon-based. I think it is within the realm of possibilty for something organic to produce something inorganic, and simialrly, for something inorganic to produce something organic. From my understanding, you have shown them as mutually exclusive sets. I propose that they are in fact intersecting sets. That is, something could be both organic and inorganic at the same time. Imagine an inorganic body with an inorganic soul breathed in. In the words of Styx "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, my brain IBM" [quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1274997760' post='60485'] If the cube is unnatural but created from our own self limitations, our limitations, although created by us, would still be organic if we were the organic things that made them. If the cube is inorganic, it could be argued that something inorganic also created it, meaning that the maps of one's soul that lies within the inner walls of the cube is also of an inorganic nature, for how could something truly organic be held back by something that is inorganic? ...[/quote] You will find that we in fact do break out of these limitations. However, why could something inorganic not hold back something organic?

I like both cats and dogs. Although cats make great pillows, I must say I prefer dogs, best explained below: A dog will think: "Wow, these people feed me, love me and take care of me, they must be gods!" Whereas a cat will think: "Wow, these people feed me, love me and take care of me, I must be a god!"

I think you can edit your boot.lnx from windows. Make a backup of it before you do.

It has been fixed. Haven't tested the rest of spaw though.

Welcome aboard

Whether you set a specific ritual for someone to take your heads or you give them like this, it is the sae outcome of a giveaway. Since it can happen anyway, I don't see a need for it through chat. All it has changed is that HC is even easier to fix a wimner. Granted, head gifting is easier, however, what little chance there was for error, such as someone running by and taking the heads in the midst of confusion or the players first needing to learn what rituals are needed to acomplish this feat. In something like the boss heads contest (which can be won multiple times by the same person) it is already easy for the strongest to dominate the battles, the only way to overcome it is through superior strategy (like in normal heads) Ultimately, I think it is better not to have the feature because at least when gifting through battles, the opposing players are able to counter that action (which can in turn also be countered and then that move counter, ad infinitum) but now what stops one from juggling heads around with associates so that the aggressor can never get hold of them.

Is it not conveiable that someone gave +rep them them afterwards? And was it [b]every[/b] post you have ever made?

Can you attach a screen shot of the issue? Also please say what browser you are using.

Avatar images must be gif, item images are png. Remember to open the sample image in your image editor to see what transparency is used.

Was it LordDante? A golden avatar with a sword and a shield.