Chewett

The skill of a good landscaper is to be able to deal with the normally limited amount of space and not to crowd it, Since it looks like space is an issue, as in all of the items are very crowded then would it not be better to create "new" scenes that the main one leads to so that the current proposed scene is just the entrance? I couldnt really remember the plan of the scenery, but when i thought of the greenhouse/shed i was more imaging it would be filling the entireity of the scene, mainly since these items are normally large, and given the size of the slime and using it to compare, anything smaller than most of the scene would be smaller than a person. Given the trouble with trying to get one scene changed for the dojo, i cant imagine there will be any more difficultly in adding a few scenes, both feats being exceptionally hard.

[quote name='Shadowseeker' timestamp='1339277824' post='114224'] In the event that an alliance only has 2 members or less, they are in constant danger of being disbanded immediatedly. Using alts to fill the seats is not allowed if they are from the same person [/quote] That isnt clear, and would have to have some clarification from Mur/Council, but i believe that is indeed the case based on my discussion with mur months previous.

are these rules intending to replace the current ones? or be an aside?

[quote name='Kyphis the Bard' timestamp='1339197778' post='114167'] If the 3 members minimum alliance rule stands we should probably add that to this page, to avoid any future confusion as happened to Fyrd when the LS was taken from him. [/quote] seconded

I asked Murry this question previously and he said that provided your alts are not in the alliance to specifically provide loyalty benifits or that you dont have multiple alts in an alliance, thats perfectly fine. But there are no concrete rules banning alts in an alliance. Although i think that there should be some rule regarding multiple alts in the same alliance,

[quote name='Tarquinus' timestamp='1339148555' post='114059'] I don't follow you, Chewy. Shouldn't bother with what? My opinion is and always has been that talk is not enough. [/quote] My post was mainly a reply to Pip, I was under the impression he was saying there is no point doing anything if the council are too busy/lazy to check things happening. I also agree with you that talk and specifically this post, will not be enough If there is anything i can do to aid the alliance, please feel free to ask me for anything.

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1339130582' post='114039'] I believe I understand why Tarquinus takes this position regarding the Council, and I can see where you're coming from as well, I would just like to offer my view: If the CoE simply did their thing and waited to be recognized, the Council would not recognize them. They are preoccupied with other things, and have little time to go looking for people to reward, no? [/quote] I dont know, I think they should cross that bridge when they come to it, i havent seen them do anything and if they have they have been very quiet. If they do a shedload, and still nothing comes of it, then more direct means could be decided, but at the moment i find it foolish to presume things that havent happened. I think the reasoning that they shouldnt bother because they wont be noticed... is rather poor

Quite honestly, i dont care to try and decipher the long and ardueous document that you have linked. It seems the key points are all in the "long form" including so many "technical" buzzwords that i see no reasoning to waste my time. And would be very tempted just to "randomly vote" That is my only criticism, Its perfectly fine you want to brush up on all your law writing stuff, but its not going to mean im going to bother to read all the buzzwords, i get enough of them in my job that i need to read.

Yay tests!

If mur has previously stated that their current goals are wrong from what they do then what is their goal?

How can you judge the activity of an alliance? The number of posts it makes? The number of wikia edits?

What do people think about the rule? Should an alliance be maintained when there is only one active member? Should there be a more flexible system?

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' timestamp='1339089618' post='113974'] Other than admin alliances, an alliance is a group of people with a badge to signify that. One person or two people is not a group - I dont see why the rule shouldnt stand. Z [/quote] A very good point, i feel more discussion is needed before anyone casts their vote unwisely. Therefore i shall close this for now, we all need to think about this more objectively. EDIT: please see this discussion thread: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/12435-3-member-alliance-rule/

In addition, as i said i shall be contacting the council, i shall be putting the names down of anyone who agrees with this action on the petition i shall be sending. If you wish your name to go down, please post here and i shall add your name to the petition.

I am completely ignoring the fact that the alliances were removed. It has happened, i feel we should all move on. However, i do feel the rule is incorrect and that it should be changed. I shall be opening this poll, i shall also be writing to the council with the results of the poll and asking them to consider removing Murs Rule, I do not think it fits. The poll does not specify if the rule should have the number changed, But whether the concept of disbanding alliances based on member count. Please vote on this matters and do not turn this into a "return X alliance back" thread. What has happened has happened. Both alliances were started to be "hibernated" so there is a chance to regain them if we, the community, wants to. But we should speak out and say we do not feel a rule should be applied.

Its an interesting one, I myself cannot remember what the Legend speakers set out to do, nor can i quite honestly see what has been happening with them. It is unfortunate that they were removed, but it seems entirely hypocritical to enforce the limit for CoE and then not for any other alliance? Its a rule that was enforced by Mur, clearly someone decided it should be enforced checked. Do i agree with doing it? probably not, Do i agree that it should have been done? Probably yes, It seems entirely unfair to CoE if you are to not apply the rule retroactively. More of a punishment specifically targetting CoE. Personally would be looking towards the future and A) change the rules regarding alliance "inactivity" and B) start work on a better CoE/LS Its noted they are in hibernation, whatever that means, surely means that there is a way to "reattain" them. My only question now, do people just want to complain, or are people going to actively do what they should have been doing to reclaim the alliance?

have you tried other items?

its up for me... link - http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/magicduel.com

Actually, as someone pointed out to me there have been no offical petitions to get the alliance back because of: [quote name='Tarquinus' timestamp='1331459772' post='106285'] I have chosen to work toward regaining the CoE badge through in-game means - when I said I thought that if we couldn't regain the badge through merit, we didn't deserve to have it, I was not merely spewing rhetoric. But I feel that I can't let your posting about why you will continue to hold the CoE badge without making any real use of it go unanswered. You surely realize you have upset people and made the game less fun for more than one person. You must be aware that your posts, particularly the second one in which you admit that Poe made this remark to you "quite some time ago", make you seem vindictive, grudge-bearing, and judgmental. [/quote] It would be interesting to hear other CoE members views on this, i can only assume this has changed since amoran, who i believe is a senior CoE member, has started this pertition. However i know little of the inner CoE structure, so she might just be starting it on her own without permission. again this is just conjecture.

Provided something good actually comes of this, that being some form of visible action, i would support this. I look at KoB and see some decent action going on with it at least internally at the moment.

[quote name='Isabella Finch' timestamp='1339021965' post='113803'] I did not know, but even so... I still think it would be nice. Say I have water I can use 50 times... and someone else needs water, but they only need to use it ten times, maybe I could use a new item like... a measuring cup to allow me to give away or trade water the ten times so I still have forty uses of mine left. If that makes any sense to you. Maybe it could even be an item to buy in the shop to be given the choice to separate things out of convenience. Maybe we could buy separate inventories to place different items in. If I had two, I could store water in one for trading, or herbs or wood and in the other store what I wouldn't want to give away or trade because I would need it for other things. Or maybe we could buy pockets for out inventories if they are like bags and we could separate things that way. There could be multiple ways to do it. And it would make things easier, especially for newer players. I have no way to collect water. I had to trade my way up to what I have now and if I use it or trade it for something I need, there is no telling when I could ever get it back again. Same with sand and wood. It could even act like the heat rocks. They could be bottles or crates and it holds however much we put into it and once it fills or no matter how much is in it, it is one, but it is separate from the single resource because it is in a separate container.. [/quote] Read this topic, mur explains it quite well: http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/10370-how-can-resources-be-fixed-unsplittable-groups

[quote name='Isabella Finch' timestamp='1339016659' post='113776'] It isn't overly important at all... But I would like to find a way to divide my resources in my inventory. If I have 50 water and want to give away or trade only half of it rather than all because it is stacked... I think that could be quite useful. [/quote] You know that mur wrote a lot of information stating why resources shouldnt be split and such, and that its been designed as such? Its quite possibly you dont know, and therefore i would advise you to search this information out.

Then, i would suggest mailing council and asking them for it

Have you seen the amount of text ingame? there is a shedload + more sheds!

Do you have a team of people? Last time i checked Mur denied all translation requests from a single person, mainly because MD is huge.