-
Images
(Zl-eye-f)-nea
-
Posts
1,481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
51
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by (Zl-eye-f)-nea
-
-
-
Mine reverted back to only the one I currently have after the duplicate same tag thing that happened.
Z
-
Change, Blut, Nim - Done
New items & temporal shift done.
Z
-
Phan - done
Temporal items shifted.
Z
-
happy bifday
Z
-
Bored - done
New Item added to list: Blood stained veil
Z
-
Change - done
New items added to list: Dried Sauce & Coal Nuggets
Z
-
Alrighty, its yours, come get it when youre about.
New item added to list- Creepy Doll.
Z
-
As many of you are aware...and regularly remind me...the alliance Defenders of Bob lacks an icon.
So following some artistic interest in game, my own laziness, and your collaborative pestering over the years... I thought I'd up the ante.
Bare in mind this doesn't mean the icon will be used, but I have faith your awesome skills may well mean one will be.
Quest Task:
Create an alliance icon for the Defenders of Bob.
Details:
- The icon must be complete. That means it has to be to the relevant specifications required to immediately be uploaded without need of any editing by higher powers.
- 140x140px, .gif, in or around 3kb
- It must be a hand-drawn original.
- It must fit with the other icons - so it needs to be in colour.
- Be innovative & make it fit what DoB and EH is about.
- Give a brief bit of blurb with the picture, to explain why you designed it how you did.
- Remember that the icon gets viewed as really small next to someone's name in chat as well as the bigger version, so when you upload the picture, please upload both sizes for us to look at.
- You can collaborate - this means if one of you is an artist and the other a techie, one can draw and the other can do the digital manipulation. Or for example, one is an ideas person and the other is a skills person.
- No more than 2 people can collaborate.
- You can create more than one design if you want to.
- By submitting your image to this quest you agree you allow the image to become property of MagicDuel if the higher powers consider it good enough to use as an official icon for the Defenders of Bob alliance.
Reward:
Potential to have your art as part of the game infrastructure - no guarantees there, but its a cool possibility.
A wishpoint to the winner. If two of you did it together, you each get a wishpoint.
A gold coin for second place, if two of you did it together, you each get a gold coin.
5 silver coins for third place, if two of you did it together, you each get 5 silver coins.
Judging: The DoB will be asked & some random picks. Public repping will also come in to it.
Fit to requirements
How well did you achieve your aim
Bobness
How well did you consider the smaller version of the icon
If you want to ask me any questions, either post here or send me a PM.
I'm not putting a time limit up for the moment because it is a bit involved, but at some point I will post again and give you a weeks warning before I close the quest.
Z
-
Sasha - done
Eagle Eye - done
Nim - sorry, not an auction more like a shop. First who asks gets it for the listed price. Dog Antler is 4sc if you want it.
Z
-
Re 1st problem: I was under the impression that functionality was not the aim of the game with this, but would be added if fitting or if WP requested and odd? Plus, the 'right now' shouldn't be a stopper. Buckets etc were made way before their functionality was considered by most people.
Re 2nd problem: Personally, I like the idea that some second level items will take only a few things, some medium level and then I would expect some to require a large amount depending what its for and if it makes sense. Could even be levels within levels. So for example make the herb fertiliser and then herb fertiliser as an item could be a base item used in one or more other 3rd level combos.
Z
-
per Sunfire - start of slider is not 0% it is not a number.
Have tested moving to 0% - this works.
Z
-
Ive deleted all my rits, and chose random - when I do so and put my slider to 0, I get this "illegal action reported, keeping on this path will get you banned. #vitrng"
Z
-
Teeth - 3sc
Z
-
-
First it was "LOL?" now it's I'm blind. Wonderful. Well Ary... I fail to see how you remain blind yo your own logical fallacies - but failure to see each other's perspectives is hardly relevant to point out, its pretty obvious. Or rather, in my case, I see your perspective, I just don't agree with it.
Buying something with ill intent does not make the purchase illegal. You can go on about intent all you want, but it doesn't inherently make something illegal. The whole point of Money Laundering is that the goods are illegal, its not that the goods are being moved around, its the fact they are illegal that makes it a problem. It's precisely the' where they have come from' that defines laundering - as in "washing dirty money". It isn't a matter of linguistics it's a matter of factual definition. You're using a term that emotively will activate certain responses to back yourself up, and due to the severity of the suggestion you're making, I'm afraid I'm not going to let it slide. It's sheer inaccuracy.
You are still arguing against alts in general, because now you are arguing that items acquired on alts are ill-gotten, thereby making any alt related purchase or trade 'illegal'.
Underline, capitalise, embolden or use italics to highlight your point all you want but unfortunately it isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, it's that I don't agree with it, so it makes little difference.
I go back to what I just said - if you have such an issue with it, stop arguing with me. I've already said I don't care either way what happens whether I agree or not, it's not a big issue for me - so stop arguing arbitrary points and start coming up with a solution.
Z
-
Once again..for the people in the cheap seats...the definition of money laundering has to do with ill-gotten goods. Not transfers, otherwise banks would be money launderers. The situation in itself is NOT laundering. If you define the original good as ill-gotten, then it becomes laundering. If they were acquired via reputable means, it isn't. So unless you are telling me that A2 got his X via some dodgy system of theft or bribery already, then can we please stop calling a monkey a fish? Or are we saying that anything acquired on an alt is ill-gotten? That makes little sense to me and is only pointing me to the conclusion I'm making that actually the argument is 'no to alts'.
I say not a big issue because I don't see how this is an 'easy' thing to do as a profitable continuous mechanism. You'd have to have two people working together to get the same items to funnel to the main over and over again. There are over 700 items, with 8 per shuffle, and they aren't a different set on every shuffle. Only in the case that there is a large player base with high fund input, or where the number of items reaches X amount of mass does this begin to be a viable system of fraudulent behavior. Every available item isn't even in the game yet, that's how low the probability factoring currently stands, not for small one offs, but for a general system that is an actual problem. DD...your solution works if you couple it with a ban on the mechanism being discussed as it increases probabilities to a level of concern so its a possible work around I recon, though I still really don't see what the huge issue is right now.
If some of you feel this is a major concern, come up with a solution.
Z
-
I agree with you Ary, the "common sense" rule frequently over-rides legislation - but not always. It depends on the person judging, and I wouldn't like to assume what any individual might say. In terms of Money Laundering...again you are using the word 'dirty' as if the item was ill-acquired...but it wasn't. It was acquired quite reasonably. It isn't laundering. It also isn't against the stipulated rules.
Rhaegar - Yes free-credits have a value. Yes potentially they have the capacity to add players, and that has the capacity to add funds....but this is a much slower process, and one set in probabilities. It is not fair in my eyes to see it the same was as someone who pumps money in to the game directly. That's how I see it at the present time anyway.
There are clear cases when using this system will be abuse. For example: A1 is building a wall. It needs 3 bricks. B has a brick. A2 has a brick in their shop, they buy it and funnel it. To be fair to Sasha though, I have always thought she does have a point regarding this, not in every circumstance, but in some. The alt may still be funding MD, is it so relevant that shuffling didn't occur when trade could be done with no fund placed? There is an argument to be had one way or the other, and I go back to what I said, the true argument here is some people feel there should be no alts.
Generally if using the alt to orchestrate a build via the main, that's what I see as a possible abuse of any consequence in the current state of the system and its governance. I also think time and mass have a big impact on what is and isn't abuse here and its way too hard to define the situation so simply (hence my comment re ease of acquisition). If someone considers there has been an abuse, and it involves something like this, then it would need to be taken on an individual basis.
Z
-
Whilst you think this is "common sense", I don't, at all. In fact I find the whole thing completely ridiculous if I'm honest. To me the flaws are patently obvious. To me, your version of "common sense" is insanity caused by group hysteria. That's not me being offensive, that's just my personal opinion, not on you, but on the topic.
When someone is abusing something, it is clear. It is, as you say, something we all see based on "common sense". This, I'm afraid, is not one of those times in my eyes. Not with the current stipulations that have been made. Currently, proponents are arguing that there should be no alts, without realising it. I'm totally open to a view that changes my opinion also for the record - dst made a very fair point about free credits for example, and discussions about how easy multiple item acquisition is may well help change my opinion.
One example: A1 gives B a Morph in 2009. B gives A2 a different Morph in 2015. Clearly not abuse to my "common sense", but to some of you, it is. Yes this is an extreme example, but that seems to be one of the only ways to get the point across right now.
Z
-
I could go on forever saying why it is or isn't easy and that would take up waaaaay too much time over something that frankly I think is not a big issue and shouldn't have been raised in the first place. If you feel its easy, and its wrong, as I said its a moral opinion. I'm not going to care one way or another if it becomes against the rules for the record - but I do think the logic is faulty personally - and unless someone can show me a rule that states otherwise, currently it isn't breaking any rule.
Z
-
Rhaegar, show me the rules that back up your stance and I will agree with you, but for now, what I know is alts cannot trade between each other directly or via a middle man.
That rule above, does not include two separate items. It is about a singular item and it is for the reason you mentioned surrounding shuffling, personal probability increase, and MD profit gains.
I agree with DD in what he said.
Additionally, if two individuals managed to work together to get the same items en mass on two accounts to create a factory line of 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 transfers, then a) id be impressed, that would take a lot of work, and b) it would still generate a ton of money for MD with all the necessary shuffling.
I fail to see how this breaks any existing technical rule, nor how it is detrimental. It is as I said, an inherent situation caused via having alts in a game at all.
Z
ed: just seen your post dst - the free credits thing is true but with the sheer volume of items, coupled with how long it would take for two accounts to get the same sets of items for this singular purpose. I don't see it as relevant.
-
By the definition of 'technically', then lets be clear here 'technically' you didn't transfer a morph from your alt to your main, that's the point. 'Technically' your alt transferred a morph to another character, and that character transferred a different Morph to your main.
Non-technically you can argue your point, but it isn't one of rules and logic, its one of emotion and your personal morality system. Which is fine, but it isn't against any rule.
You are using a term that has no relevance to try to justify false logic. Money laundering is where ill-gotten means get funneled via a business to appear legal. The items in question are not ill gotten in any way, it isn't comparable. The alt bought or acquired the item legitimately, the middle man also bought or acquired the item legitimately, the two people then made trades in pairs. Its more comparable to a bank than money laundering.
Z
- DARK DEMON, Sasha Lilias, dst and 3 others
-
4
-
2
-
In the game we have the facility to trade for coins etc, or to pass items. People get items for nothing all the time without paying credits. One account getting something from another for nothing is not alt abuse unless it's from an alt, which, as there are two separate versions of X, this is not.
The game still received the necessary credits, items simply got passed around. Nothing was directly handed through from an alt to an alt to the game's detriment. It's a clever scenario, granted, but in actuality because there are 2 different versions of X, neither of which at any point hit all 3 people involved, there is no abuse, as the movement is in pairs and the pairs are never alts.
Z
- dst, DARK DEMON and Kyphis the Bard
-
2
-
1
-
Then I haven't misunderstood, the scenario is exactly as I thought it was and described initially - and I still don't think you're right. The game isn't detrimented as I said, the argument is faulty logic.
You are arguing about a probability factor that is inherent in having alts in any way shape or form, not about an abuse. If you don't think alts should be allowed at all, that's something different.
Z
- DARK DEMON, dst and Kyphis the Bard
-
2
-
1
MD Anniversary: Day 1
in Previous Years MD Birthday threads
Posted
Rhyme off
During day 1 I will be holding a rhyme off in the gazeebo of sound all day.
Its a bit like a rap battle, only without the swearing and racism...
The goal - to defeat your opponent in a battle of wits whereby your verbal skills make them look like a chump.
Some rounds will just be for fun, and then there will be reward rounds where you have to battle up a pyramid to win. -EG A +B compete, B wins, C + D compete D wins, then B and D compete.
The rhyme off champion will win a special reward, and that person will be decided once the day ends.
Z