(Zl-eye-f)-nea

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

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

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

From what I can tell, that's just going around the houses whilst not actually breaking any rules. There are 2 identical X in the scenario, so X with ID 1 and X with ID2. B could give his to A1 and A2 could give his to B, that's a straight line of the system you've described? What's the problem? MD still gets 2 credits, there are still 2 items. Its not swapping out that's the issue, it's passing items from one to the other in a way that detriments MD financially due to creating multiple characters to increase your own collection probability. I can't see that your scenario causes that. You scenario only indicates that by having alts, everyone's probability levels go up - which is unavoidable. Maybe I'm not understanding? Z

Happy Bifday Z

Through rivets and valleys I wander, riven by the snow. There lie dying, my Angels, the ones who never show. They plead with me to save them, but instinct tells me no. A snowflake on my finger, a jackal by my toe. Z

So if this scenario happened, with two different individuals....and a year later when the quest is mostly forgotten, a total of 20 people have signed up because there are newbies and such who randomly take part...you would all accept that the winner should still get a WP? I'm not arguing one way or the other I'm just interested in the logic behind your arguments. Z

Happy Bifday Z

Close topic please moddy ones. Z

I dont open them all at once either. Top100arena.com is also giving me an issue, it wont load the gateway in firefox, but it will in chrome. Anyhow, the invalid thing happened three days in a row, but not today, so guess its just me and its sorted for the moment. Thanks all Z

Zleiphneir -- 77300

If this is still alive, then I bid the morph I lent you. Z

http://magicduel.com/ui/advertlinks/redir.php?r=CseTq-XGohFfK_so5Zuy_w, This one is giving me a blank page that says invalid. Anyone else getting that? Ive tried 2 different browsers. I can't remember what the link text is in MD, I can find out tomorrow if necessary. Z

A single rock is shy, lonesome, and over-enthusiastic. If you have just one, it will randomly pester you when it feels like it. Examples: - appears in your creature rit for no reason. Does nothing, just an icon trying to get your attention. - sits in your water bucket so you gather less water. Just trying to get your attention. - leaves your inventory and hides somewhere in the scene, makes banging noises if you attempt to leave without it - gets over excited it you feed it and leaves a little mound of dirt/sand - makes banging noises A group of rocks is sociable, but also troublesome. Examples: - sometimes take it upon themselves to guard your inventory from thieves, so everything looks like a pet rock....of course this means you also can't access anything. - make hits more powerful, at the expense of speed...as long as you have let them sleep before hand - instill terror in people who are scared of rocks - leave dirt/sand all over everyone, and everything, including you - randomly bring you useless and disgusting gifts, half dead squashed bees and such - steals anyone's candy and pretends they didn't Z

There is a difference between getting stuck, and getting lost. The description you pose for lost, is actually stuck. They aren't mutually exclusive, you might be lost and stuck at the same time, but it is worth noting that there is a difference. You can be lost, without being stuck, you can be stuck without being lost, and you can be both at the same time. Although, I'd argue that if you are stuck, it is more likely that you got lost, and now you are stuck, rather than being both stuck and lost. If you are stuck, you probably know your area quite well by now, so you're now only lost in the sense that you are in a new 'area' and you want to be in your other 'area', you're only lost by virtue of reference, you aren't lost by virtue of no longer knowing where you are, because you know your 'stuck in area' all too well by now. If you don't realise you are stuck, and instead still think you are lost, that's more dangerous, but there is no frustration of dead ends now, only the terror/joy of having no clue where you are. So I pose you a question - what does it mean to be lost? Only once you define what lost is, can you ask whether someone could truly choose to be lost just for the sake of being lost in and of itself, and whether or not you still think this person mad based on that. Is it worth knowing what you shouldn't?..this is circular. If you shouldn't know it, then no, you shouldn't know what you shouldn't know. The more pertinent question being, why shouldn't you know that piece of information?, and can you know you shouldn't know it before you do know it? and once you do know it, will you know you shouldn't? Lets theorise that you shouldn't know it, because it would be bad for you. Then you have to ask, what does it mean for something to be bad for you? It seems like in this case the bad thing about getting lost is a form of social cutting. You no longer match the rest of the blocks. Aka, you are defined as mad. You haven't prodded about whether the person themselves thinks they are mad or not. Arguably you can't be mad and think you are mad, so really this is about everyone else, not the person themselves? If a construct is built of parts, there are homogenous parts and in-homogenous parts, there is also the ability to recognise these two...or not to recognise them. To incorporate them into the construct, or not. Arguably, all things being fractal, some parts are part of a greater or lesser construct and it isn't a matter of choice to incorporate them, they force themselves into the construct as soon as you come into contact with them. They were always there, its just, now you know about them - and it is these things that would come into should we or shouldn't we know them, based on if we consider them good or bad, because they inherently have more power than our own theoretical meaning of choice. Which is, I think, what this comes down to...do you actually have any free will? Not freedom, that is something different and often confused with it. Your body is just as to blame as your mind, given it harvests what builds part of the construct. You like chocolate because it tastes nice, or because other people do, or because it looks nice, which is mostly to do with your experience of chocolate, and nothing to do with just picking it. So your construct traps you into a system based on a set of factors you feel like you chose, but which actually you didn't. You had the freedom to choose chocolate, but you definitely didn't have the free will to choose it. My opinion is that getting 'lost' for the sake of it, in my definition of the term...which I'm aware I haven't defined yet here for you...is an act of free will, and that in having free will, the general populance think you mad. What you should or shouldn't know is defined for you by the construct, and is defined by that as a version of what you should or shouldn't be, in order for it to have more power than you do. Z

Phan - done Z

6sc for the two pieces of driftwood you have pls. Z

1) is there a reason people can currently see everything we carry once its over a certain amount? 2) If a location is made, and people use it, I also think people should be able to break in to it. Z

CoTS - come get em Nim - come get em Z

Rhaegar - come on down Z

Amber - deal done Rophs - come get em Z

Change - deal done. Z