Kafuuka

By access I meant mounting the file system, not changing the partition table... that's as useful as having physical access to your harddisk and throwing it out of the window. Using a live cd should allow you to mount the file system and to read and write files on it (regardless of chmod and owner settings even, unless you encrypted your harddisk, physical access to a computer still compromises security 100%). Linux actually keeps a lot of backups of important files for you, unless you override the default settings. Furthermore a lot of configuration files are automatically generated so even if you loose them the system survives. Yet it is better to look for a back up, manually undo what you did to break it or read the manual pages on how to write a new config file. Alternatively you could try to log in remotely, although the options for that aren't standard and they require that booting succeeds fairly well.. and you need a second computer and internet etc... live cd should be less demanding imo.

[quote name='I am Bored' date='22 May 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1274554627' post='60209'] Ok, recently I have installed Ubuntu as a second opporating system, and have been able to easily boot both ubuntu and windows, but at one point i set ubuntu to display a splash screen at startup, however this didn't work right and it actually just made it show 8 copies of the boot up screen on the top of the screen, now this wouldn't be a problem (because it still booted just fine at that point) but it shows a letter as a single color pixel, with every 4th one being blank (no matter what should have been there) and recently it wouldn't start, and when i hit f1(to get it to show me the command line) and hit enter, it will just show single line over and over as if it was an error, now normally this wouldn't be a problem, but of course i can't read what the error is, or if it is even an error, so what i need to do is change ubuntu's startup options from windows (which does boot) does anyone know how i would go about doing this? [/quote] Err, did you not make any back-up files which you can use to restore your system? And even if you didn't most of the time there exists a previous version with an extra ~ at the end. If you cannot access your linux partition from windows (why would you ever grant windows access to it anyway?) just use a live cd to boot. Also, I guess the people over at the ubuntu forum would be able to help better than me.

[quote name='Firsanthalas' date='18 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1274175750' post='59963'] Fourthly It's not feasible to think that we can track down and keep all of the previously used avatars. You would also have to decide what avatars were precious and what ones weren't. And it also defeats the purpose of the avatars being made available again in the first place. [/quote] It's most likely a doomed endeavor yet it isn't a crime. (nor is selling and/or using them as you already said.) If people stay polite and don't go all 'I am honoring more legends than you' I don't think there's any problem, except some players going broke i guess...

[quote name='Juni0r' date='17 May 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1274127396' post='59942'] imo its just that those are RPC Avatar or even if they werent those people made a history with their avatars and personally i see it as an injustice... [/quote] It's not like Esmerelda is the one who put them in the shop again. If you really want to stick to those ideals, buy them and don't use them. In fact I'll throw in a coin to support that cause. (and yes i am aware this [u]seems[/u] ironic when compared to my position on items)

Anyone else consider it funny that some think a name is too important to change, while others argue it is not important enough to change? As others have said, I doubt it is easily exploitable. Even cheating to a WP, if such does happen (let's not go there in this thread), requires you to know - suck up to - people that have WP to spare. Which should take enough time for several people to know enough about you to notice your 'disappearance' and be suspicious of that new guy with 100+ AD that looks faintly familiar but absolutely nobody ever saw before. @dst: why are you against people wasting WP on silly things? Consider it natural selection.

Because it's a mathematician or a physicist, they always use assumptions like 'this is normally distributed' or 'air friction is irrelevant' or 'everybody thinks in a logical fashion'. That's why i said a TRUE mathematician... but I suppose you'd have to be one to think it funny.

[quote name='Nex' date='05 May 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1273078971' post='59450'] as for the guesses: there have been a couple of very optimistic guessers going for 2 - 18 (mathematicans/ physicists?), most guessed in the 20 - 30's, surprisingly many guessed in the mid 40 - 60's and a few even went for impossible numbers to mess with our math [/quote] A true mathematician should've guessed zero. It's the only number that is correct if everybody voted logically.

If you're advertising the quest as difficult, of course I have to try (and fail).

[quote name='Blackthorn' date='04 May 2010 - 04:20 AM' timestamp='1272939654' post='59342'] If you can guess correctly what it is and who it belongs to...I will draw an Item for you too...FREE!!!! only one guess per player. The first correct answer wins. (If this belongs to you...please don't spoil it) [/quote] Yays guessing! Bag of fertilizer - belongs (or at least it did) to Zleiphneir

[quote name='Blackwoodforest' date='27 April 2010 - 06:12 AM' timestamp='1272341577' post='58688'] No, very sorry to say, but your entry didnt made it in, hasn´t fetched the idea and format I wanted to have. I really tried to implement it but I broke it up then. [/quote] Oh, I thought it were all the entries, since part of the purpose was tribute to Z and you already admitted forgetting people. But I sent mine to him anyway so that purpose is served. By 'broke up', did you mean it doesn't rescale well?

[quote name='Blackwoodforest' date='26 April 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1272315305' post='58664'] Oh right, I have some versions of it, i really forgot about this one entry because pics havent been included so far...sorry, I will update this tomorrow. Happend by mistake, my mistake. [/quote] *cough* two *cough*

[quote name='awiiya' date='13 April 2010 - 02:17 AM' timestamp='1271117860' post='58004'] It's hard for me to imagine that Shadowseeker would give the bar to you, as a holey argument is worse than no argument at all. You yourself admit to your logic being flawed. [/quote] Obviously I never intended to keep the iron bar, so there's nothing to loose for me. However considering the time lapsed I think it less plausible for any previous entrants to win than it is for me. And if I did it'd be because it was funny, not because it's logically sound, that was never a requirement. Anyway there's still one problem nobody noticed and one that isn't mentioned in this thread yet.. and until Shadowseeker says so, you won't know which requests are still being considered.

[quote name='Shadowseeker' date='06 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1265478558' post='53937'] Why should YOU out of all receive my Bar of pure iron? [/quote] A wise man once said you do not own something unless you can give it away. It has been months since you tried to give up your Bar of pure iron,yet you have not managed to. Therefore it can be claimed that you don't really own the bar of iron. Furthermore, transferring non-ownership of any item to me would not harm you, therefore you might as well transfer non-ownership of the Bar of pure iron to me, who pointed out this problem. However should you prefer to give away your bar of pure iron, the recipient of said bar can only become the owner of said bar if they also manage to give away said bar. I hereby promise to give away the bar of pure iron, should I receive said bar from you, to demonstrate I indeed own such a gift. And I will do so to the first person who can point out all flaws and rebuttals to the above logic. (Thus far I've counted four.)

[quote]ah, finally we find someone who is good at 3d modeling.... we might actually be able to get md3d to work now that we have that.... how well do you think you could model a location in md? (someplace like wind's sanctuary, because you can see it from multiple angles)[/quote] I vaguely remember someone made a 3d render of the paper cabin and other places and it was nicely done imo... though it's been ages since i read his/her papers and I can't remember the name. Certainly someone else must've seen it?

[quote name='Darigan' date='27 March 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1269714573' post='57013'] and what some of you have done is berate them when they have defended themselves (which is not your job)voice your opinions fine but don't gouge their eyes out for attempting to defend their decisions. I'm not saying that they did use the WP in the best way but to drag out people with fairly decent reputations into the spotlight simply for one mistake is overkill IMO [/quote] After rereading I notice that Phantasm says he understands the replies to his defence. Mya hasn't got any direct feedback, only comments about how the guardians work in general. The only other person who made a 'defence' was Sagewoman. By elimination you either have a problem with me or Shadowseeker and both of our comments were very objective. For the sake of undoing your filibuster, I will quote again why I think her defence is silly: [quote] I will not defend myself further. What was done in the past STAYS in the past. [/quote] If this statement was valid, everybody would walk away free, since no trial happens before the crime.

[quote name='Darigan' date='27 March 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1269710468' post='57010'] Alright then it's left up to him, which is how it should be [/quote] No. The final decision is left to him; we are allowed to debate as much as we want. If any of our arguments are valid, they should influence that decision, if he feels like investigating this stuff. If any of our arguments are valid, they should influence how people will use WPs to reward questers in the future, lest people wish to be publicly and/or privately accused.

[quote name='SageWoman' date='27 March 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1269701233' post='56991'] ...but as a code, they should not be kept for too long. To my way of thinking, this meant a time limit. I will not defend myself further. What was done in the past STAYS in the past. I am with Amoran on her suggestion that this topic be CLOSED. [/quote] That is silly. You could claim ignorance, but you should concede not to repeat it in the future. Instead you want to close the topic and make it sound like what you did was righteous and the people who "accused" you (note the "" around that word) as wrong? Imo this topic has it's use for exploring the guidelines towards acceptable WP rewarding policy and we should work constructively to avoid "bad" WPs in the future. A very simple rule could be 'if you doubt a WP is a suitable reward, then give something else, like a coin or a CTC or even a 'congratulations you won' pm."

[quote name='Yrthilian' date='16 March 2010 - 10:48 AM' timestamp='1268732889' post='56488'] The issue is that people who are non land associated are upset they don't get WP's as easy as someone who is. This is what seems to be the basic moan on the whole matter from what i read that is. [/quote] There are several issues, one of the claims is that some WPs are given virtually for free or as payment instead of a quest reward. Those who are not associated with a land do not want to get WPs as easy as that. Of course this is a generalization and there will certainly be people who do want free lunches, but then again it's no worse a generalization than yours. [quote]I cant go to England and demand the payed there social welfare because i am there and have not got a job. I have to wait 6 months before that may happens as this shows to them i intend to stay in the country. Technically this means i am becoming a member of there land. [b](note this is just an example)[/b][/quote] You could go to any country that has ratified the Shengen agreement and get paid immediately. In Europe, England is the exception, not the norm. Furthermore irl being a citizen implies you pay taxes, which is where the money for social welfare comes from. So far I have not seen anything even remotely like taxes in MD, although if the new rule were that for every 5 WP a citizens earns, he offers one to the king, who then redistributes it as he pleases, I think that would be very interesting. [quote]So applying that logic to in game there is no difference. It is though luck. you CHOOSE to be non allained to a land that is a choice [b]you[/b] made.[/quote] Not necessarily true. I'm certain some people who applied for citizenship are still being processed... although that kind of bureaucratic problem is very real life like. And there's also lands without kings. If one chose to be allied to such a land/guild/alliance before this issue arose, do you consider it wrong for them to stick to that decision? If I were king I would not want people to join my land solely for opportunistic reasons.

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='12 March 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1268411032' post='56269'] If i make wp functional only for players with lands, all this "independent" thing will go out in a week without much argue. But because you have an option, some of you stay without citizenship but still want the benefits of one. [/quote] For someone who values loyalty you underestimate the feelings of your players. I will not let an honorable character of mine pledge allegiance to someone or something just to improve my metagame. I have no doubt many of citizens from the king-less lands have similar ideals. *edit: grammar*

[quote name='Windy' date='12 March 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1268407007' post='56264'] I think Quests have become too complicated. They are not entertaining enough and do not encourage socialization of the masses. WP have taken the fun out of Quests as well.[/quote] I remember only two quests that required me to really interact with other players. All the others that I attempted at most required me to send a pm with a pass phrase to get the next set of instructions. With clickies there is a simpler system available to do have the same level of socialization, ie 0. I haven't attempted any quests lately, not enough time for it right now, but I doubt it can be worse than a year ago in this regard. [quote]I think Quests should encourage creating teams and forcing us to role play more effectively to accomplish a certain goal.[/quote] These kind of quests are a lot tougher to make. I had high hopes of making a collaborated quest but by the time I got all the necessary people's consent, I myself ran into lack of MD-time and now it's being postponed due to me... I hope they don't mind waiting for me a bit longer. Worse yet, I've heard of several large scale quests being shot down due to conflicts between collaborators. These possibilities make it far more attractive to design and run quests by oneself instead of with a team, which results in smaller and less interactive quests. @Shadowseeker: I think people should play a quest because they want to have fun, not because it will yield the highest reward. For that reason it shouldn't matter if a reward is specified in advance or not. Or you could include a small print like 'number of wishpoints proportional to number of participants, limited to 5 maximum'. I won't give WP to people who did poorly on a quest, but it might make sense to reserve a different reward, should the numbers be too low. @Firsanthalas: The thing with favoritism is that people without a land, currently, are never favored based upon land. Skill/knowledge/time based quests all favor different people, regardless of land affiliation. If you have at least some skill/knowledge/time, then you will inevitable have an advantage for certain quests. If the rates of rewards for codebreakers/riddles/races etc are equal, then the system is fair. You cannot say the same about land-only quests, but it is easy to accomodate this: make quests that exclude one land only, eg. if there is unease between land A and land B, certain quests could be open to everyone not a citizen of land B. The neutral people will have more options with those kind than people that are citizens and if you fiddle the math, it should be possible to balance it. @Yrthillian: you are not the only king, so it is not YOUR rule that is questioned. The rule you are quoting is about WP CODES. The CODES should remain in your land, not the WP. If you are going to use boldface to stress things, please don't make it look like it was intended to have land-only participation. It is officially within the rules, but I highly doubt this was the desired outcome.

I see several different opinions, which is nice in a debate. Some are quite close to my view, eg. Yoshi. The main difference with Yoshi is that he is a bit overenthusiastic in adding premises to the examples. [i]1. A is "winning" because B cannot counteract said point whether it being perfectly valid, or just something that is beyond B's understanding/knowledge.[/i] Exactly. [i]2. This would depend on the arguments used, wherein B could have used a more valid argument, while A's arguments were more just BS. Either could be "winning".[/i] Well, if A's arguments were BS, then they could be refuted by B and thus changing the example. Of course it is impossible for two mutually exclusive theses to be supported by valid arguments and valid premises and we expect that in the future enough arguments will be refuted until only one side is left standing. [i]3. A is "winning" because even though B is able to refute one argument, he is back to 1. because it might be beyond B's understanding/knowledge.[/i] Aye. [i]4. Neither is winning and they are both at a stalemate. B might be ahead by a bit because the way I see it, if he was able to shoot down the arguments of A, then B is being more successful. How long that will last however is deemed uncertain.[/i] I agree that it's a stalemate, and that it certainly [b]feels[/b] like B is doing better, yet merely refuting the opponent is not enough. Otherwise the straw hat man strategy would be a valid one. It certainly works often, but it is not a correct means. [i]5. This would be the better outcome to 4 (in B's case anyways), and B would be "winning" at this point due to B shutting down A's arguments, and making a claim/argument of his own to which A has to respond to.[/i] This is the one case in which B 'wins'. One problem with this is that if A has enough time to bury B with silly arguments, it might become impossible for B who has less time/people, to refute all of A's arguments. 'Winning' a debate obviously does not alter reality. At best it alters our perception of that reality in a way which is more close to the truth. Sometimes we will arrive at the wrong conclusion because the debater for that thesis was smarter. @Pipsticks: what you are referring to are the emotional "debates" where people have issues or other stakes. We do have philosophical debates from time to time. Please don't hijack my thread to raise issues you have with kings etc. I did read their statements and I used both that knowledge and prior knowledge about the applicants to decide who I thought would do a good job. If this tread inspires one person to learn something about logic, then that is one more person who might know HOW to swim. For that person to decide whether they want to swim upstream or downstream is not what I want to discuss here. @Magnus: you say that every argument launched results in either a point for A or B. But what if in group A a straw man is placed by B? That person would keep adding silly arguments which are easily defeated by B and thus increase B's score. You could try to quantify the quality of arguments, or to count only the arguments which still stand instead of those that are refuted. Yet in theory there cannot be an argument leading to thesis T and also one that leads to the opposite, ~T. One of the arguments (or premises) must be wrong. In practice you might not have the time to look for it. Your idea then makes a sensible decision strategy. @Fenrir: define 'valid point'? I use the concept of argument as I have seen it in logic: there are premises (axioms or facts) and there are set rules of inference. An argument is a series of inferences that starts at a set of premises and derives from them a thesis. Which then forms a new premise from which other theses might be derived. In logic it's usually noted as: premises: A, B, A & B -> C argument: A premise B premise A & B combination A & B -> C premise C Modus ponens The options for refuting C are then limited to denying A or B or A & B -> C or the logic system used (yes there are multiple logics, the most common is binary logic, but ternary logic with values true, false and unkown isn't that hard to imagine, or think about statistics which uses real values from zero to 1)

[quote name='Jester' date='28 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1267397146' post='55515'] In the first case, B could be not responding because A's argument is irrefutable, not because it is childish. This format you used for the argument confuses me, however. B has the strongest position of being able to refute A's arguments each time, and he gets to end. It would appear to be more fair if A would have a chance to counter B's arguments. [/quote] It's not supposed to be chronological, sorry if it looks that way. It's also shortened a bit for simplicity. In reality there'd be a dozen 'rounds' wherein A and B both supply arguments and refute the others' arguments. A more realistic example might be: A has 10 arguments of which 8 are refuted, B has 11 arguments of which 10 are refuted. @Burns: with the time I can see why you relate it to courts and accusers, but that's not what this is about. A is not the accuser nor the defendant. A and B are merely arguing mutually exclusive theses. Your advise about not starting a trial without having safe and sound arguments is valid though. @Orlando: often enough at the end of a debate a decision is made. More philosophical debates are more prone to resulting in A and/or B adapting their thesis, hopefully in such a way that they are both closer to the truth. Discussions about practical and immediate issues tend to result in a compromise or a decision wherein one party's ideas dominate. In the latter case there is a clear 'winner' of the debate, yet if the decision ultimately turns out to be the wrong one, everybody looses (money, time, ...). *edit before i confuse people even more: Yoshi's right, it's separate examples*

[quote name='Chewett' date='28 February 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1267379444' post='55499'] And how can we trust its not fixed? There is NO way of showing its actually random [/quote] If it runs for a year, afterwards you can use statistics to check the likelihood that it was indeed random. Quite crappy, but it can be done. However, what's more tricky is getting the right odds and having an overview of the revenue. If you want 1% profit, I'd suggest using one random number from 1-100. If nobody wins, you take 2%, rounded down, and put the rest into the reward for next week, otherwise you distribute everything to the winners. Seems like the easiest way to have decent odds and a small profit (expected to be slightly larger than 1.12%). Other options: choosing 3 numbers from 0-10, no repeats, sequence irrelevant: P= 1/120; choosing 5 non repeating non sequenced from 1-9: P= 1/126. Overview of the balance... there was mention of clickies holding items, but unless I missed an announcement that hasn't been implemented yet? Is there any way to make code visible to others, so they can verify it? Btw, lottery is naught but a tax on not understanding statistics. It's one of the most widely accepted cons in existence.

Debates have always been a part of MD and I thought it was once again time to talk about argumentation. Suppose you have two people (or groups of people) A and B who are each supporting one thesis. In the following examples, who do you think is 'winning', if any? 1. A gives 1 argument and B does nothing. 2. A gives 2 arguments and B gives 1. 3. A gives 2 arguments and B refutes one. 4. A gives 2 arguments and B refutes both. 5. A gives 2 arguments and B refutes both and gives 1 argument of his own. Feel free to ponder why exactly I'm asking this.