Kafuuka

[quote name='dst' date='08 January 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1262986927' post='52240'] Why all our suggestions imply nudity? Or similar things? [/quote] My suggestion is entirely against nudity! If you read it the way my character reads it of course... which leads me to the point: nudity is funny. Seriously, have you looked at a naked human? The idea that the feet, the ankles and the spine have to carry their burden is quite comical. For more serious things to do, I dno. Women rights have been mentioned, but I don't think that fits into MD. The game itself doesn't differentiate between genders, and the way people treat others is set to fantasy standards. Imagine a succubus complaining men treating her like a object...

[quote name='Windy' date='07 January 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1262870912' post='52094'] We don't really DO anything...yet. That is why I am asking for suggestions to revamp it. We always address each other as SISTER and we (not all) go skinny dipping in the lake by Wasp's Totem...[img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img] [/quote] You could start 'nudists anonymous' to try and cure that behavior. Or start a bathing fashion line, like a seamstress guild?

[quote name='Dmik King' date='06 January 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1262779228' post='51967'] Is it more like department of woman rights? [/quote] lmao, The closest person to a feminist in MD is dst and she refuses to join the sisterhood. (This is my personal opinion based on what I read, for all I know others might be very active irl but it certainly doesn't show through MD.)

It'll be interesting to see what people will be bidding and i'll be feeling sorry for Mur when he has to read all the nonsensical bids and keep track. The spell doc reward is a bit odd. It seems to me that it is worth most to those who already have a large collection. [i]"Spell docs were given by RPC players but since there are no more rpcs there is no current way to give them out...yet. When there will be a way to do so, and there will be one, the higher level spells will not be given."[/i] => The use is for high levels of documents, which are only usable if you have all the lower levels. Who is going to bet on getting the lower levels once there will again be a method to get them? The RPC method made some docs readily available and others sparse. I'd rather bid on the ability to distribute a low level doc than on a couple of unique docs and pray I'll get the corresponding lower ones soon. (not that i have the funds for bidding though.) [quote name='Burns' date='06 January 2010 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1262792100' post='51994'] Of course it's just one morph and one darkling, it could be a lot worse, but i definitely hope that there'll be some nice quests for those, too, cause.. you know... it's one thing to buy the colored crits that are basically a normal crit with a bit added strenght, but something completely different to buy a creature that's not for sale normally :/ [/quote] I have it from a good source that a "darkling" has been a quest reward before actually. Rumor has it that it's been sold privately afterward, I wonder if that is true and if the price was similar to current bids.

For conversations, if a person knows only the very basics about a lot of things, you can never have an in depth conversation. Actually if I encounter people who specialize in impressing people with their vast amount of subjects, but don't know more than the first ten pages of a single book, be it textbook or novel, I consider them annoying. They spent all that time working only on looking smart instead of actually being smart. @Pipstickz: some people do try.

[quote name='Burns' date='16 December 2009 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1260983831' post='50428'] I can't speak for all quest-creators, but i think most would like more reward-codes better than wishpoints to spend themselves... i mean, sure, getting one or two as specail reward would be nice, but it would lead to a huge decrease in quality of quests, and insanely increase the quantity of quests, leading the system ad absurdum, if every bloody stupid action you do is part of a quest, where's your own role? i'd like it much better if WPs were limited to questees, questers can do other peopels quests anyway, it's not like back then when RPCs were the source of WPs and it was frowned upon when they did quests of other RPCs, now any quest could bring WPs and anybody can participate if they want to, so there is no reason to give out Wishes for the quest-creators imo... unless something is really brilliant and time-intesive, like Cutlers quests, then appropriate rewards would surely fit, but that's already being done anyways LOL so, to conclude: i'd like it better to get more reward-codes for being a good quest-creator and do more evil experimental quests, than get a WP and buy something in the shop for the bragging rights, and i don't think that i'm the only one with that opinion [/quote] If quest creation is to be rewarded it would make sense for the rewards to be the same as for artisans, right? The RPC thing is of the past and the only other reason i can think of is that clicky acces costs a WP. Maybe a single time refund? I agree that more tools is what I as a creator want: WP codes, other prizes, script features (although i have to try the existing ones first)... Also, most people seem to propose linear WP-days relationships or piecewise linear relationships. Why not make it some mathematical function like the fibonacci series? It would be fun for people to figure out when they will get the next one (until a spoiler occurs, and obviously fibonaaci isn't useful now that i mentioned it; of course a function with the id as seed would be difficult to spoil, but might be difficult to keep fair and unconfusing). For this it might make more sense not to reward retroactively, but start the count at zero for all players; maybe an extra WP for the first to crack the series, that would set the record for longest lasting contest

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 December 2009 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1260888497' post='50086'] I believe that Mur may have stumbled on to something that I often consider in philosophical and religious debates, being the subjective application of mathematics. To my knowledge, empiricists have failed to express logic in terms of pure mathematics. Godel showed in his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]Two Incompleteness Theorems[/url] that math is not robust enough to validate its own truths, let alone the absolute truths beyond it. [/quote] Mathematics is a logic system. It doesn't make much sense to express logic in terms of maths. The status of maths in society is due to it being the first logic that was axiomatized and has for a long time been the most extensively studied one. Godel proved that for each non trivial set of math axioms (yes there are mutliple sets and thus multiple mathematics) there are mathematical truths you cannot prove in a finite amount of time. Proving anything beyond what is true in a logic is by definition impossible: if you cab prove it with the set of axioms then it is true in the logic. Philosophy has difficulties beyond this because there is less consensus on which set of axioms is valid. @Mur: it makes sense, but it doesn't convince me. My 'problem' is not that there are different representations but that you choose the ones you like. Apples (before beingn cut) looked upon as discrete objects and in discrete numbers 1 is decided upon. Gold however is quantified with continuous numbers. If you were to ask people what 1.001 apples is, they'll have a puzzled look on their face, if you ask them what 1.001 kg Gold is, they will know that it is 1 g of gold more than 1 kg Gold and if they are ecnonomists, they might even be able to say how many euros that difference is. Extending upon that desired precision is public opinion and looking at one type of object only (thus one precision), I could even argue that multiplication and addition are the most powerfull in terms of digit generation. No matter how large the number, the precision is fixed and thus the number of digits after the comma are always the same, but by multiplying or adding, you can increase the number of digits before the comma. If we stick to apples I can say that substraction does not give any meaningful numbers: what is -5 apples? Baseline: for something to be true, it has to be true in all representations. I see no reason to drop that premise.

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='14 December 2009 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1260793171' post='49873'] infinitely precise is a requirement fulfilled from the start. What you say is only valid in a virtual world, where there is no 1, there is only 1.00000O(infinity), but in reality we say ONE apple, assuming all that the apple means. Now before you reply to this i will throw in your best argument There is a connection between the "virtual" number 1.0000 and the "one" apple. In reality there is no clear border between the apple and the surroundings. At atomic level i mean. You can say with precision the apple ends here and air or plate starts here. Who will claim all the layers of dust and dirt between them ? So, i guess we are both right in a way. [/quote] If you wish to invoke the finite precision of measurements or rely on de broglie wavelengths, then your original division example fails as well. Imagine a pie, slice it in 3 equal pieces. Same as your apple there is no 0.33333(infinity) slice. With platonic numbers 1 must equal 1.0000(infinity) for it is the perfect one and thus .3333(infinity) is not special. Without Plato you could claim 1 is not exactly 1.0000(infinity) but the same can be done for 0.33333(infinity). Either way you are playing with representations and choosing the one that suits you most. As I said before, if you do that, then I too will always choose the representation that is most convenient for me (and in light of having a nice debate that would be the representation that least agrees with your theories; no fun in agreeing.) Now that we are considering numbers: there is a fun fact about complex numbers and multiplication: First consider pairs (0,0) (1,0) (0,1) etc. With multiplication you can never stray from axis you are on in R2. Complex numbers are often represented as pairs (a, [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//cool.gif[/img] with z = a + bi. However if you multiply (0,1) with itself, you get (-1, 0). Not certain if you can do anything with it though? [quote] Note: I can't reward you for "being right with me", even if you deserve a reward for the math stuff, its not ethical. Sorry. [/quote] How expensive would it be to airmail a cookie? afaik cookies are the standard reward for nice posts.

Difficulty of programming depends a lot on what you want. If you want a shout to be heard at every location that is 1 click away, except if there is a door between the scenes, then the code will be quite annoying to write. If you want to send a line of text to a single location, specified upon 'casting' that should be child's play. For things in between, it depends a bit on the coordinate system. afaik That is the only way for the server to recognize which scenes belong together and it is a bit fuzzy for this purpose.

Swiftweasel (a fork of firefox) on ubuntu linux (9.10 for amd64) with an alpha flash 10 plugin... and it works!

Name – |_Ark_Mattarox Player ID – 10113 Title/Tag – Controlled Shade Undefined entity commonly referred to as Shade. Usually being a fragment of a larger cluster and without individual identiy. Interests – Individuality Petition – I believe humans would call this my birthright

Most, if not all, ethics are an extension of 'treat others like you want them to treat you'. It makes perfect sense regardless of religion, for it is an equal trade, while the alternative is the will of the strongest. This is also why anarchy is the least stable state, it will collapse into dictatorship (or evolve into democracy, but less likely). And do so very quickly: as soon as people in an anarchic state realize this fact, plans will be forged and carried out. @Malaikat: then put fries on the left side and the hamburger on the right, and bury the toy from the happy meal somewhere out of sight!

I don't really care much about the number of WP/year, the WP codes are likely to cause inflation anyway. As for alt abuse there is one relatively simple method to make it impossible: change the way items are made and don't add useful creatures to the WP shop. Afaik everything else in there cannot be traded and I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with the item creation process. As I said in the market debates there needs to be a creative and a destructive flux of items if you want to sustain circulation. If WP abuse for items would lead to larger creative flux, that might actually be a good thing. If you however want to check alts, I don't believe there to be a 100% efficient system and manually approving "good alts" is going to be tedious at best.

The agony of choice. I have once read a very funny thought experiment on it: Suppose you have a donkey that is equally thirsty as he is hungry. To the left at 10 meters is a pond and to the right at 10 meters is a batch of hay (or whatever donkeys like to eat). ie there is no logical way to decide whether the donkey should first have a drink or go for a bite and thus he will be unable to decide until he dies. It has been proposed that instead of choosing to either first have a drink, or eat first, a third option is available: decide to do something random. If one is truly without limits, that includes knowing whether an optimal solution exists or that a coin toss is needed and the problem of choice will not occur. Ironically you will never actually choose something because omniscience will put you on a deterministic path. If you accept that thought, then it is clear that a minimum of restriction is needed to ensure a positive amount of freedom exists for a one-person universe. For multiple people it is easier to see, since the freedom of person A is limited by that of person B. [quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='09 December 2009 - 03:21 PM' timestamp='1260368490' post='49506'] This is something I've thought a great deal about, mostly in the context of American culture and social ideology. The problem with any regulation that limits or removes freedom is that it also removes individual responsibility. If we each maintain unhindered freedom of choice, than we have only ourselves to blame or praise for the outcome of those choices. However, if choice is limited or regulated than the result is a dissociation between cause and effect, action and response, behavior and consequence. For instance, consider the manner in which our (American) Electoral College system breeds complacent voters, or how social reforms (welfare, social security, etc.) may contribute to financial irresponsibility. [/quote] Even if it will be horribly off-topic, it must be said that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalist reforms leading to financial irresponsibility of those who owned large amounts of money. After 1929 laws were imposed upon banks to prevent a similar crash and these laws have been circumvented by constructions involving insurance companies. The crash has also been quite accurately predicted by people from various disciplines (historians, physicist and economists to name some). (When asked if the prediction would change the behavior of people and thus nullify itself, a professor answered: "One word: Greed") [quote]in all democratic countries everyone has right to vote if they want too[/quote] Actually in Belgium you have the duty to vote and not voting is considered a severe crime, for which you can be sentenced to prison (I doubt it ever happens though).

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='07 December 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1260212263' post='49396'] @Mailakat,Grido 1/3 = .3 -> is WRONG your 0.9x10 example Grido, uses 1/3 already, because you can't describe 0.333... in a complete way without it. Without division you will always miss a 0.00...001. of course (1/3)*3 is 1, but without the division its not, that was my point, And i am still not convinced i am wrong on it. [/quote] 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] is wrong? If you use tail division, you will after n+1 steps get "0." + n times "3" as your quotient (concatenate it as a string) and "0." + n-1 times "0" + "1" as remainder. Mathematical induction allows us to say 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] wherein we mean the 3 is repeated infinitely. You can see this as an extension upon the decimal representation if you must and say that without this extension 1/3 cannot be represented in the decimal system. You can then use the proof Grido used to say that 0.[u]9[/u] = 1.[u]0[/u] = 1 = 3/3, with induction on all the digits or with epsilon-delta proofs. (Not everybody believes in induction, but then again not everybody believes in infinity and in both cases the math becomes a lot more difficult to prove all theorems that have been proven (and for some of those practical applications exist)). [quote]No, you are right its not infinite information, 1/3 is just "hard to match" information, without using division. Its still one step forward. To relate this to the original thought... if you have a perfect circle (because its the simplest 2d shape) you have less information than you wouldhave with lets say a star shape. An irregular shape would have even more information stored in it. I am not sure but i dont think you can have endless information out of a finite system.[/quote] I fail to see how it is a step forward especially since 1 can also be represented as having countable infinite zero's. Square roots and pi are more likely candidates for your step, since those are irrational numbers and pi is actually linked to circles and spheres, you should like pi(e). As for information contained in a circle, I ask you again, why should I take the smallest set able to describe it all (3: origin and diameter if talking 2d) instead of the largest set: the uncountable infinity of points that make the circle? For 1/3 you chose the most difficult representation, now you want to choose the easiest? If you take the easiest then yes, a symmetrical star shape would have more parameters to describe it (6+); if you merely look at the full set of points, it too is uncountable infinity. For the glass sphere, I also have to guess how you define information, but I would strongly suggest not to use the set of points (subatomic particles) there either. imo you'll have to drop the 1/3 argument in favor of always using the smallest representation. [quote]no quantum does not respect classical. in quantum you can have a particle jump from one place to an other without actualy going all the way there (eletron energy levels). That and much more are impossible in classical physics. Theyare not compatible from what i know of.[/quote] That is not what I meant: it is classic which does not respect quantum when looking at the scale for which quantum effects are important (usually this means nanometers or smaller). Quantum is a more modern and more exhaustive model than classical physics. That we still use classical physics is because for larger scales, if one were able to describe the problem with quantum physics the difference would be negligible (averaged out). The same holds for special (and general) relativity: for velocities close to zero (far from light speed) the difference in outcome between special relativity and classical physics is smaller than the usual measurement error. There have been difficulties in uniting general relativity and quantum, which doesn't surprise me since general relativity is capable of giving anyone a headache (using symbols with four indices repeatedly in every equation is not funny).

[quote]Regardless of system/base, division can be used to obtain a "flawlessly represented" and infinite in that way, number, while multiplication cant. I still wait a proof where it can.[/quote] Just because you can find flawed representations does that mean the numbers contain infinite information? I can easily propose a system in which all numbers have infinite digits: 1 = 1.[u]0[/u] 1/3 = 0.[u]3[/u] Hence we don't even need division to have infinite digits anymore. Should anyone doubt that 1 = 1.[u]0[/u] I shall illustrate it with 1 =/= 1.0000000..01 for any finite number of zero's between the 1s. Of course we never write it that way, but does that matter? [quote]Laws of physics say many things, if you compare quantum physics with normal one, you will see they fight a lot, while both being right in their way. Actualy what i say relies on the balance in an indirect way...to put it in other words: [b]if[/b] something is capable of vanishing , (example, energy into endless universe) then something, according to the same balance, should be capable of appearing out of nothing.[/quote] I mentioned quantum because you mentioned particle physics and quantum is more accurate than classical physics on that scale. Both models have scales on which they represent the universe adequately and in a useful way. Quantum physics works perfectly fine in the range where we use classical physics, and gives the same results, but calculating it that way is way too much work, which is why we use the simpler model there. And I still want to see that if. [quote]this might result into an other side question, is infinity the _equal_ opposite of zero? I personaly think not, you have infinity on both sides of zero, so to say you need one single zero to balance two types of infinity , making zero have more authority[/quote] Mathematically infinity is the inverse of zero with regard to multiplication, where 1 is the neutral element. Multiplying zero and infinity is undefined. For addition, minus infinity is the opposite of positive infinity, with zero the neutral element. Infinity minus infinity is also undefined. The opposite of zero is zero. (And yes there are cases where maths uses positive and negative zeros, eg. when working with limits.) From the archive article: [quote]Imagine you have a glass, for the sake of example lets say its a perfect sphere (or any other ordered geometrical shape). The quantity of information it contains is small, you could use a simple formula to describe the glass sphere and it will be perfectly accurate.[/quote] This is also a question of representation in my opinion. You have said "Muratus del Mur: so a simple equation, causes an endless source of information" in relation to the infinite possible 2d representations of a 3d object. Why should I use your simple equation for the perfect glass sphere in this case? If instead I say it has uncountably many information, it becomes impossible to find something that has more information (afaik there is nothing bigger than uncountable infinity). Something to consider: how do you define information? Suppose I have a message and I encrypt it using a key. If I then give a person only the key or the encrypted message, they will not be able to reproduce the original message. Both the key and the encrypted message can be considered as partial information, which is only of practical use if you have both parts. But there is also the information that the key belongs to that message, or a CSI agent could be interested in the kind of ink used to write the message... @Kyphis [topic='4843']read this![/topic]

Best quest: Cubicity (Zleiphneir) And I totally forgot to request this category: cutest: [topic='4302']Esmerelda[/topic]

The cure for insomnia? Isn't cause more adequate, or do you believe in homeopathy? For the leadership thing, I am trying to think of an analogy using lasers or magnetism, both can actually be used to store information (hard disks, holograms); not certain if it'll lead to any consistent results though. [quote] Muratus del Mur: can energy, matter, information (all 3 i see as the same thing in different forms but thats not the point here) , appear out of nothing and vanish into nothing? Muratus del Mur: because particle physics says it can! ... Grido: the scientist in me is asking for proof Muratus del Mur: okok, i will have it [/quote] Quantum mechanics says you can violate the energy balance, as long as you do it only for an amount of time shorter than is observable. t ~ h/E This means that every time energy vanishes, the same amount is created moments later (and not just anywhere, there are constraints on distance too). Which is [b]not[/b] as strong a premise as saying energy can simply vanish or be created from nothing and permanently ignore the laws of conservation. [quote] Muratus del Mur: think about waves Muratus del Mur: the more higher the frequency Muratus del Mur: the lower the amplitude Grido: yeah Muratus del Mur: to keep same energy Grido: (damn i hate physics) [/quote] For those who hate physics, here's some formulas 1. Mechanical waves behave like springs: The equation for springs: F = - k (x - x0) Wherein k is a constant depending on the flexibility of the spring and x0 is the position of the spring at rest, usually one takes a reference sytem where x0 = 0: F = - k x and F = m a = m x" => x = - m x" / k [i](1)[/i] This is a differential equation with the general solution x(t) = c1 cos wt + c2 sin wt Using the constraints x(t=0) = 0 => c1 =0 Rewriting: x(t) = A sin wt [i](2)[/i] => v(t=0) = Aw Since x(t=0) = 0, the potential energy at t=0 is 0, thus E = mv² /2 => E = (Aw)² m/2 [i](3)[/i] Hence amplitude A is inverse to w (= 2*pi*freq. ) Substituting 2 into 1: A sin wt = - m (-w² A sin wt) / k => w² = k/m [i](4)[/i] (Since k is an undefined constant, this proves that the frequency can be anything (positive) even with the constraints used (further constraints on m are possible)) 2. For a photon the amplitude A = E ~ freq Not quite possible to increase the amplitude at the same time as decreasing the frequency here... [quote] Muratus del Mur: what irrational number, you dont have it unless you use division Muratus del Mur: (i dont think its called irrational!!) Muratus del Mur: sqrt(2) is irrational [/quote] 1/3 cannot be accurately represented in the decimal system; every representational system has this kind of flaw for different numbers. You can see it in more detail on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point "For instance 1/5 cannot be represented exactly as a floating point number using a binary base but can be represented exactly using a decimal base." This is a problem of representation of rational numbers, not of division/multiplication. I suspect this to be a consequence of how we are taught multiplication and division: first you learn to add and subtract, from that you learn how to multiply: 2 + 2 + 2 = 3*2 = 6. Since we all like symmetry we are learned to divide next but then the representation fails. Perhaps there is a (counter intuitive) representation wherein all numbers 1/n are accurate but where some n are not.

[quote name='Grido' date='02 December 2009 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1259786886' post='48963'] It's intentionally Best Quest. Quester can be added as well, but apart from quest creators, nobody would be able to vote on it really, as they wouldnt know.[/quote] Is that really a problem? The same applies for other categories. The problem is you only know about your own quests and that's only if they passed the first stage, not if they got stuck while reading the Q page. I admit, sometimes I read a Q page and have no idea what it is about and what to do next. I kept scores for people who did my quests, so if any were nominated I know who to vote for. Does this work with nominations, and does everybody get to nominate everybody except their alts? @dst: please don't confuse me with Lifeline.

[quote name='dst' date='02 December 2009 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1259766644' post='48898'] Going through the Pls entries I found some quite funny. I was wondering if we should change the funniest quote award to funniest Pl entry award. And use the entries we have so far. [/quote] I second this, amongst others because a whole page of posts is ignoring it and people have short memories in my observations. Also, doesn't it make more sense to decide on the awards before nominating people? Even if you blame the merge with the other topic, that topic clearly has distinct times for category debate and nominations!

[quote name='Udgard' date='02 December 2009 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1259773899' post='48915']Obtaining one requires the sacrifice of a GG drachorn, which some people will gladly trade one or two WP for one egg, [/quote] I thought selling WP was illegal? Imo a 4 WP creature is only cool if it looks hot but is totally useless. It's like saying "I blew 4 WP on this but that's because I am awesome enough to afford it." If it is really useful, more people will buy it, making it less unique (imo wishes are supposed to be unique, although automation somewhat ruins that idea) and also unbalancing (not that i battle a lot). Plus it would force MB to gather enough WP to buy it, lest he fails to prove his awesomeness. A just reward for all that PL spam

It's a fun quest, although for obvious reasons my opinion is biased, and it has been a while since i completed it. Luckily I still have my original pm: I had most trouble with the spike puzzle. When you lack sleep, it is not obvious that you need to set all squares to be a spike, not just the ones needed to satisfy the numbers... What's good about the quest is that the instructions are clear (most of the time) and the puzzles seem to be at the right level if you look at number of attempts and successes. What's a bit less imo is that it is first solve, win. I saw people start the puzzle when I finished and others had finished it before I even heard about it.

mp3 flaw: what if an mp3 buys or wins a joker? mp4: -no access to Wish Shop-items other than give-vitality, invisibility and locate (call them the RP-spells) What about clickies? And is the xp reset even worth anything at mp5? -no access to some shop-features (i'm thinking about collector-crits and tokens mainly) Some people like to collect things not for war but for collecting. If it wasn't for collecting and things like the Loreroot guards, I might've sacced all my creatures and be done with the combat. -no access to the ol' hidden shop and no access to medusa's weapons and breast-plate-thingy I seem to remember mp3s with full sets generally: no matter how good your system, if it isn't 100% proof, someone will find a way to exploit it and others will copy him/her. I'd rather not experience nerfs for such a thing, I already consider myself quite harmless when it comes to creature combat. And why do people stay on a lower mp level anyway? To age their creatures, because they don't really care about combat or to win HC. Perhaps if they are really sad people, they like to pick on newbies even if they don't get anything in return because they have hit the cap. If we ignore the last possibility, the easiest motivation for people to move up is to deny HC participation if a character is too old for its level.

But there is no alt less convincing than one that got banned right?

These should be adapted or removed imo: Best RPC - no more RPC Best PWR - redundant Best Dojo Staff - sparring grounds/GGG? Rookie of the Year - but the description says < 80 AD =/= 1 year Best LHO - most helpful person? Least Convincing Alts - several alts have been banned... Best Quote - "Awarded to the player or players who have given the best contributions to Yami no Sakura's list on the Forum." I don't remember such a list being updated the past months. Not that we can't start a new thread, but many funny quotes of the previous months will be lost. Additions: I like the best quest idea. Should it be the most difficult or the most fun or both? Best fighter makes sense too, what about best puzzler? Totally unpractical to decide, but solving quests is also a main objective in MD imo. Best debate and best debater; another one of MD's pillars. Perhaps something market related, the market can always use more propaganda. Best slave/employee, best trader etc?